Posse Incitatus

Leonard Nimoy RIP: He lived long and prospered

Yesterday my lovely wife expressed considerable sadness at the news of Leonard Nimoy's death.  My own reaction was quite different:  83 years was a pretty good run for a chain smoker and former alcoholic.

Star Trek originally aired before I was born, but few people actually watched it when it was current.  Like so many young people, I came to know the show in syndication - Saturday night at 6 p.m. on Channel 50 in Detroit.

I never became a Trekkie - Star Wars easily displaced it as my primary obsession - but I enjoyed the old shows and later the movies.  I still think Star Trek II Electric Boogaloo The Wrath of Khan is perhaps the most brilliant, insightful super hero movie ever made.

Yes, you read that correctly, because Star Trek changed over time from a set piece "Wagon Train in the stars" (which was creator Gene Roddenberry's original vision) into a cast of super-heroes who time and again use their unique powers to save the universe.

Like the rest of the cast, Nimoy looked at the show as a chance for his big break into show business - either as a bridge to a film career or at least steady paying work for a few years.  Star Trek initially provided neither.

Nimoy was understandably puzzled and upset by the turn his career took.  How could he become typecast by a show no one had actually watched?  Yet typecast he was, and in his reaction one can see the usual progression of grief - including a great deal of anger and substance abuse - until he came to accept and embrace his peculiar form of celebrity.

This acceptance gave him an opportunity to move forward and become a respected director, finally breaking out of the role, though the in the popular imagination he remained linked to the persona of pure logic that he created.

As I said, he had a good run and he unquestionably left his mark on the world.   Rest in peace.

(And yes, I did want to make a point of never naming his signature character.  Call it a last gesture of respect for the man over his role.)

 

Here comes another bullet bubble

I sometimes think that the president and his advisors must own a great deal of stock in ammunition and firearms manufacturing companies.  How else to explain their strange behavior that does nothing but drive up profits for these entities?

By now most gun rights supporters are aware and appropriately outraged at the latest administration action:  Trying to ban .223 caliber pistols and certain types of ammunition for them.

Kevin Williamson has a nice summary of how federal regulations are being perverted to come at ammunition from both ends.  The short version is that EPA is trying to ban lead bullets as bad for the environment and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives wants to ban all the other kinds as being "armor-piercing."

The theory seems to be that this gee-whiz bit of legal slight of hands will convince the judiciary that the Second Amendment may protect the right to own firearms, but the government is free to ban the ammunition that makes them actually work.

Okay, sure.  Good luck with that.

Modern liberalism is going through its culminating crisis.  The internal contradictions and lies necessary to support it are now impossible to ignore.  We've discussed this in terms of feminism, but now the "gun safety" lie is being exposed for what it really is:  Liberals really, really want to ban all guns everywhere.

Anything they say in denial of this is a laughably transparent lie.

Now that may not matter to President You Only Live Once, who is determined to use the last half of his second term as an opportunity to check off every item on his Marxist post-modern anti-American wish list, but the rest of his party is getting hammered for it.

Not only that, but his timing is impeccable.  Right now the Republican leadership is on a serious roll of pissing off its rank and file.  Last month they screwed the Right-to-Lifers.  This month they are taking a dump on everyone who believes in controlling our borders and boxing in the administration's unconstitutional power grab on immigration.

Thanks to the criminally inept GOP leadership, they are not only forcing public relations nightmare in the form of shutting down the Department of Homeland Security, they are also doing so in the context of offering a surrender that their opponents refuse to accept.

The mind boggles.

And yet, just in the nick of time, here we have the administration stepping up to remind everyone that while the GOP may be dumber than a bag of hammers, at least they aren't trying to steal all your guns and ammunition by regulatory fiat.

Even the most pissed-off former Republican loyalist (like me) will now crawl over broken glass to vote for these morons because at least they aren't stripping me of my Constitutional rights.

I wonder if President YOLO understands that his veto is not immutable or unbreakable.   An outright ban on all ammunition sales is the kind of brain-dead policy that even senators who favor "common sense" gun control would have to go on record as opposing.  Outside of the tonier neighborhoods of Chicagoland and Berkeley, it has no popular support.

I think on a certain level Obama's minions know this, which is why they were careful to hide their earlier policies behind a smokescreen of "gun safety."  There's no hiding this one - or the logic behind it.  The timing - after both the mid-terms and 2012 is also no accident.

Obama may be done with elections, but the Democrat congresscritters aren't and there are more than a few who aren't particularly interested in sacrificing their careers so President Golf Course can check another box on his bucket list.

A Split-Screen Ad Campaign

A few months ago I wrote about the Split Screen Presidency.

Today, I'd like to propose to the Republican Party and all of its presidential candidates a Split-Screen Ad Campaign.  The theme: Don't believe the Democrats when they promise to make things better. Even though it slams President Barack Obama, it can suggest that the same misguided policies and dire consequences will befall us if Hillary Clinton wins the presidency in 2016.

Here's how it works: Simply juxtapose President Barack Obama's statements, promises and plans with the disastrous realities resulting from his "leadership." Keep running the devastating pieces of indictment for 30 or 60 seconds.

- For starters, how about showing then Sen. Obama whining in 2008 about President George W. Bush increasing the national debt by $4 trillion during his two terms in office:

"The problem is that the way Bush has done it in the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion from the first 42 presidents. No. 43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome. So we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back. $30,000 for every man woman and child. That's irresponsible, that's unpatriotic."

Freeze-frame Obama speechifying on the left (pun intended), and flash across the right side of the screen the fact that Obama has doubled the national debt to $18 trillion in six years, yet still economic growth is anemic, and the middle class is floundering.

- On the left side, run a loop of the O-man stating, "If you like your health plan, you can keep it," and "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor." Freeze-frame the empty rhetoric, and on the right side of the screen, show a report like this one, augmenting it with a few sounds bites from disgruntled healthcare consumers being interviewed about how Obamacare screwed them up royally.

- Left side: "GM is alive and bin Laden is dead," plus "Al Qaeda is on the run." On the right side, flash a quick listing of terror attacks committed by al Qaeda and its offshoots in the past four years, augmented by a map of Europe, the Middle East and Africa with red dots wherever this terror organization has struck. Perhaps it wouldn't hurt to show how GM's bond holders got the shaft, and how the corporation faces a $10 billion class action suit for dozens of deaths and hundreds of injuries due to its calloused and bungling treatment of faulty ignition switches in its vehicles.

- Left side: Vice President Joe Biden in 2010 boasting with his usual twaddle:

"I am very optimistic about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You're going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You're going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government."

Fade out with an unflattering photo of the buffoon on the left, and hideous images of ISIS savages preparing to behead victims, suicide bombers, burning buildings and fleeing refugees in Iraq following the U.S. troop pullout.

- Left side: The O-man making a superficial and callow statement about ISIS being the "Jayvee" team. Right side: A map of Iraq depicting the swaths of territory controlled by ISIS, plus even more horrifying images of the black-clad monsters, with bold-faced words flashing their evil deeds: Beheadings, crucifixions, rapes of little girls, torture, burning victims in cages. 

- Left side: The O-man bragging in September 2014 about how effective his policies have been in Yemen, and what a success story that nation was for his Predator drone campaign. Right side: Headlines reporting recent violence and a coup de' e´tat in the capital city of Sana'a, and footage of Islamofascists surrounding government buildings and taking control.

Well, I'm on a roll, and could probably pick many other pieces of low hanging fruit, but I have to wrap this up because I have other matters at hand. (Chances are, as I am lying in bed getting ready to drift off to sleep tonight, I'll think "Darn! Why didn't I use such-and-such for the split-screen?") There's really a wealth of material to work with. Tonight's posting practically wrote itself.

But to use that old baseball metaphor about the slow pitch right across the plate, the dim bulbs of the Republican Party are likely to sqander their opportunity by hitting a weak grounder to the pitcher, or whiffing entirely. Frustrating as heck, but a sad reality.

 

Bitter, Bitter Cold

The recent Arctic-like temperatures gripping Michigan and many other states east of the Mississippi River sometimes remind me of my long-lost youth. When I was 12 years old, WJRT-TV 12 in Flint had a meteorologist named John McMurray (he's now with WJR 760-AM in Detroit).

John is an excellent meteorologist and consummate gentleman. As a kid, I didn't realize he was a native of New York City, and wondered about his strange pronunciations. My brother and I used to imitate his accent: "Bittah cold tempa-chures, all throughout the state..."

My parents' house had an old thermometer attached to the kitchen wall (near the back door and the wall-mounted phone with the rotary dial). I recall being fascinated on frigid winter nights when I would see that red mercury dip below zero degrees to -10 or -15. I swear, sometimes I could actually see the mercury moving. How low can it go, I wondered.

I distinctly remember sleeping over at a friend's house in January 1976. I knew it was cold, but I didn't know how cold. The next morning at breakfast, his mother said, "Boys, it got down to 30 below zero last night!" I guess I replied, "Wow, incredible -- didn't know it was that cold."

It's possible the Thomsons' thermometer was off by 5 or 10 degrees, but it may well have been fairly accurate. After all, the record low temperature in Michigan is -51 (set in 1934 at Vanderbilt in the northern Lower Peninsula).

In my late teens, I recall numerous times where I disconnected and brought inside the house the battery from my 1970 Chevrolet Biscayne to ensure it would start in the morning. Those old carburetor engines were sluggish on cold winter mornings. If memory serves, I also invested in an electric oil dipstick, which I kept plugged in with an extension cord that went from the driveway through the garage and a basement window to an electrical outlet. Keeping the oil warm prevents it from getting thick, which, in conjunction with a compromised battery, can make cold morning starts difficult or impossible.

This past week we had nights where the mercury dipped to between -15 and -20, and on Thursday the "high" temperature was a whopping 5 degrees. Long underwear, two pairs of socks, hat, gloves and thick wool coat have been my standard apparel, yet even bundled up I've had to curtail my daily walks until the worst has passed. Ditto for the canine, a Jack Russell terrier who really could stand to burn off some of her endless energy.

Surprisingly, even on the most bitter cold mornings, I'll walk out to the car and hear birds chirping. Certain species, such as sparrows, blue jays, cardinals and chickadees, stay year-round. My curiosity prompted me to look up how they manage to stay warm on these long, brutal nights. Turns out they not only have a layer of fat insulation from eating more in the fall months; they also are able to fluff their feathers, which traps body heat in warm air pockets. (There's a reason down feathers are used in winter jackets!)

Now, how the heck did the Native Americans stay warm without natural gas and furnaces? Keeping fires going for seven or eight straight months would require a LOT of firewood! And circulating the heat inside of a structure without clogging it with smoke must have also been a challenge. There's something else for me to delve into.

With all of this being said, the great news is that by March 1, high temperatures in mid-Michigan are expected to be in the 30s -- possibly even reaching 40. Furthermore, it's getting light about 7:15 a.m. these days, with darkness not arriving until nearly 7 p.m. Quite an improvement since late December, when it would get pitch black at 5:30 p.m.

The two worst months of the year are almost behind us. One thing that can be said about living in Michigan is that we really, really treasure spring and summer after we've made it through another winter. At least I won't complain about dripping in sweat every day, as I did in Atlanta. And, of course, the beautiful beaches of Lake Michigan will beckon. Pluses & minuses, people.

Will 2016 see an Overton Window for the presidency?

The more I read history, the stronger the sensation I get that "it's all been done before."

Looking at our dysfunctional, celebrity-driven and consultant-clogged system for selecting our national leadership, I cannot help but feel complete and utter despair.  Our system has reached a point where sound-bites are preferable to actual thought words are given greater weight than deeds.

Many proposals are out there to change this, though few offer any hope at making a change.  The left urges a restriction on political contributions because it would then shore up the collapsing monopoly they currently enjoy in legacy media.

For example, who knows that our Marine guards in Yemen were compelled to destroy their weapons before leaving the country?  To disarm one's soldiers for any reason is an admission of defeat and if it had happened on the watch of the Republican president, it would have led the nightly news.  Humiliation!  Mismanagement!  But no one cares because (as the hated Instapundit likes to say) the people we call "the media" are really a bunch of Democrat operatives with bylines.

But what if things got so bad, if the circumstances shifted in such a way that the old notions collapsed and the unthinkable became the mandatory?

One of Michigan's own - Joseph Overton - expounded just such a theory.  The Overton Window outlines how political environments can shift over time, making the acceptable unacceptable and vice-versa.

Could there be such a window for presidential candidates?

Our present candidate selection process seems geared to exclude precisely the type of president we need:  someone managerial experience, moral courage and strategic vision.  Instead, a premium is placed on perceived "coolness" and being able to lie with a straight face.

During the Cold War things were much different.  The presidents of that era were all military veterans, some holding the highest level of command and responsibility.  Even Jimmy Carter was an Annapolis graduate and submariner.

Say what you want, but the Carter administration was far more serious than this gang of clowns.  Faced with the failure of detente, Carter requested (and got) a major increase in defense spending which led into the Reagan buildup.  The leadership was capable of adjusting to changing circumstances.

What former military officer would seek higher office today?  Every aspect of one's career would be torn to pieces, former subordinates tracked down and citations for bravery would be attacked from every angle.  Plus there would be the unceasing political pressure to check the various irrelevant boxes of competing interest groups.

Because he ran as a Democrat, Gen. Wesley Clark was spared the allegations of atrocities, but his campaign was instead destroyed by this pressure to conform to the far left of his chosen party, leaving him an incoherent mess.

This brings me back to history.  After the disastrous reigns of Nero and Domitian, the consensus grew that Rome could not afford to have emperors come from a single hereditary line.  Instead a new model emerged, where the reigning emperor would adopt a capable figure as his heir.  Thus was created a non-hereditary dynasty that led to a century of peace and prosperity.

One can argue that the very success of the system led to its downfall.  The greatness of Rome seemed beyond question and more energy was expended on the succession than actual governance.

Most people do not know this, but by the Third Century A.D. the Roman Empire was on the brink of collapse.  In the west, Gaul was breaking off into its own empire while the eastern portion was virtually independent under the remarkable Queen Zenobia, a Cleopatra-like figure of even greater power and consequence (who alas had a much worse press agent).

The Empire was clearly in mortal peril and in response the Illyrian Emperors rose to the challenge.  Perhaps the greatest was Aurelian, who earned the title "Restitutor Orbis" - Restorer of the World.

Could a similar thing happen today, when candidates not yet declared emerge in response to a crisis beyond anything we have seen? 

 

Will Obama offer ISIL tribute?

There was much mirth on the right side of the blogosphere over hapless spokesglasses Marie Harf observing that killing ISIL would not solve the problem - what they need are jobs.

I won't recapitulate the various mockeries and problems with this notion - you've already seen it. 

Instead I offer two (to my knowledge) unique observations.

The first is that Harf - like so many disciples of the New Left - is imprisoned by the Marxist view of the world as being shaped by materialism.  Obama's own infamous formulation that people without economic opportunity cling to the guns and religion gave the game away in 2008 for those who cared to notice.

The latter-day Marxists see religion and an opiate (alternatively as a crutch) that sustains people until they achieve a level of prosperity and education that allows them to sideline it as a aesthetic preference - assuming they do not dispense with it altogether.  Here again we can look to Obama's own words - defining sin as something against his personal values.

The fatal flow of this argument is that human nature hungers for a higher order of belief.  Traditional religion has, in the upper echelons of the left, has been replaced but not eliminated.  Global warming and disdain for vaccines has created its own hierarchy of belief, with abortion on demand as the sacrament of this secular faith.

But sometimes that isn't enough, and even the most affluent and sheltered may turn back to that old time religion.  John Walker Lindh (remember him?) wanted for nothing, growing up in the earthly paradise of Marin County, California.  Poverty did not drive him to radical Islam. 

'Twere always so:  guilty or bored scions of the upper classes take a turn at revolution, going back for more than a century.  It's still the case today.

This brings us to the other observation:  That we may be attempting to buy off ISIL rather than fight it.

Oh, it wouldn't be couched in those words - "foreign and humanitarian aid" will cover it up in the sound bites - but the effect would be the same.

Offering tribute is an ancient practice.  It was an easy way for a decadent Great Power to placate its enemies, though it rarely worked as planned.

At its height, the Roman Empire used it as a weapon to pit frontier tribes against one another.  Latterly, it became a substitute for military action against major threats. 

The Danegeld of Saxon England served the same purpose.  It is human nature to try to buy off enemies.  The problem is also inherent in human nature:  the enemies refuse to stay bought.

If you believe (as I do) that the current administration's goal is to finish out the term with as little overseas distractions as possible in order to consolidate their gains at home, tribute makes perfect sense.  The global situation is unquestionably worse than it was in 2009 and the United States military is arguably weaker in both morale and capability than it has been since early 2001.

None of that matters to the current leadership.  So long as they can stretch the status quo for  23 more months, it's fine with them.

Some good news: the gun control crowd is pretty much phoning it in

Given the way the rest of the world is circling the drain, one of the few bright spots is the fact that the right to self defense has never been stronger in my lifetime.

This editorial by the Detroit Free Press is illustrative of just how petty the gun control movement has become.  Go ahead and read it.  It's pretty weak tea.

Given the past hyperbole regarding “wild-west shootouts” and “blood flowing in the streets,” their current complaints are, well, pathetic.

They basically boil down to:

1.  Can’t the Legislature work on something else first?

2.  We’d like to see a system were constitutional rights can be denied through a non-judicial process based on local gossip.

The first objection is the silliest.  There are many bills pending in the Legislature, as a perusal of their own news pages makes clear.  The reason why these particular bills are first up for passage is that they require the least amount of work to pass.   Gov. Rick Snyder's veto message offered and easy fix, so the Legislature made it.   Mind you, this was  something that has been kicking around Lansing for a decade or so - ever since the original reform passed.

It’s a simple concept:vvclear out the easy stuff first while working through items that require more heavy lifting.

Okay, so besides complaining about an easy layup, what else is such a burning concern? 

Democrats say that county gun boards provide an additional layer of oversight. Because not all domestic abuse ends in arrest, local officials might be better appraised of the bad actors in a community. 

This the Freep calls a “valid concern.”

Of course it’s not valid at all.  Short of an arrest or actual conviction, rumored behavior should be inadmissible to state officials.  I could add that it is precisely this mode of thinking – that whispered accusations must be given legal standing – that is destroying our universities through the systematic persecution of innocent men.

I also find it fascinating that the Freep clings to the old trope that domestic violence is entirely men vs women.  Even more revealing is the staggeringly stupid notion that denying a concealed carry permit would do anything to prevent such violence.  Does it not occur to them that it cuts both ways - that a vengeful man might try to smear a woman and deny her the means to effective self-defense?

Note:  this has nothing to do with buying the gun or even transporting it to one’s home.  In fact, one doesn’t need a permit to carry concealed on one’s property.  So what exactly is the Freep so worried about?

The answer is that they hate guns and feel generally squeamish about them, and so they wrote a whining, incoherent editorial.

Like watching Skunk Bear fans complain about other teams running up the score, the feeble complaints of the Freep editorial board are music to my ears.  It ain't much, but I'll take joy where I can find it.

 

'Harf' Joins 'Bork' as a Verb, Erstwhile Proper Name

Sports fans may recognize this phenomenon: It starts when you despise a team (and certain key players) because it's been a thorn in the side of your favorite team for what seems like decades.

But eventually the worm turns, and your team gains solid mastery over its nemesis. Think Michigan State football over the MEEECHIGAN Skunkbears, or Spartan hoops from the late 1990s to the present day (with a few exceptions) following many years of U-M dominance (and cheating).

Eventually, you may even begin to pity your former arch-rival, the team you hated with all your might, as they sink into ineptitude and irrelevance. You may feel embarrassed for them...possibly even indulging feelings of empathy.

When the Spartans dominated U-M 29-6 in an epic beatdown on a cold, rainy November Saturday in 2013, I almost felt sorry for U-M, which was held to -48 yards rushing -- lowest in the history of the program -- and saw quarterback Devin Gardner get sacked eight times. Ditto for when the Spartan hoops team thrashed U-M 114-63 in March 2000. But the corn-n-blue's trash-talking, arrogant and obnoxious Fraud Five of the early 1990s definitely prevented me from having too much sympathy for the devil, as I will never forget the way those cheaters taunted and tormented the Spartans back in the bad old days.

Is it possible that some members of the Obama administration are so laughably out of their depth -- making utter fools of themselves without realizing it -- that I might start feeling pity for them? I never thought so, until recently.

Obama's administration is definitely the most incompetent bunch of hacks the world has ever seen. For many months, we've been subjected to the inane, lightweight comments of the State Department's twin ditzes, Jen Psaki and Marie Harf. It's almost as if they try to outdo each other in callow utterances.

Speaking about the bloodthirsty scum ISIS, Harf actually said, “...we cannot win this war by killing [Islamic State fighters] . . . we need in the medium- to longer-term to go after the root causes that lead people to join these groups, whether it’s lack of opportunity for jobs..." 

This administration has a boatload of contenders when it comes to most stupid statement of the year. Offhand, I can think of one that rivals this "Brain Harf" -- something the pompous blowhard John Kerry said last September about ISIS (he used the "ISIL" acronym).

When the leftist protest group Code Pink showed up with its typical infantile behavior at a Senate Foreign Relations Committe meeting, Kerry engaged them. He said that since Code Pink supports educating women, universal health care and good jobs, it should support military efforts against ISIL.

“Because ISIL is killing and raping and mutilating women. They believe women shouldn’t have an education. They sell off girls to be sex slaves to jihadists. . . . And they’re not offering anyone health care of any kind. They’re not offering anyone education of any kind.” This is a pathetic and insulting pander; a Harf before we knew what a Harf was.

Does Kerry really think he has to resort to something so absurd as to appeal to Code Pink with the shocking revelation that ISIS does not offer healthcare or education? Apparently, he does. This is bizarro world.

The liberals love to 'Bork' conservative nominees -- the name derived from the late Sen. Ted Kennedy's disgraceful treatment of the late Robert Bork, who was a Supreme Court nominee. From now on, let's just say that the ample stupidity and inanity flowing like diarrhea out of the mouths of Obama administration bush leaguers is nothing more than Harf. (Rhymes with barf.)

There are different types of rhetoric -- polemics, cant, satire et al. Leave it to an Obama hack to Harf all over us.

 

 

 

 

 

 

What more can I add?

If you haven't read this article yet, do it.  Now.  Right now.  Everyone else is talking about it and you're late.

Now consider the amazing arrogance and narcissism that permits our administration to say with a straight face:  "These people really don't believe what they say they believe.  We know better."

Let that sink in, contemplating the fact that our mind-readers in the White House know exactly what passes through the minds of people thousands of miles away, and yet they are always profoundly surprised to learn that the IRS and VA - arms of government under their direct supervision - may be doing bad things.

I apologize for the light posting, but watching the world circle the drain this week is sapping my will to comment on it. 

 

SNL Turns 40

I don't write about pop culture that often, in large part because I don't think much of today's narcissistic, mediocre-at-best entertainers. While there have been quite a few good movies in recent years, there aren't many great ones. Ditto for comedians: There are plenty who are somewhat funny or quirky, but not many who will be considered among the greatest.

Too many of today's comedians make up for lack of humor with push-the-envelope, in-your-face vulgarity. Reminds me of what my friends and I said about KISS nearly 40 years ago: They make up for their lack of musical talent with the theatrics and loud pyrotechnics.

That's why I appreciate the original "Saturday Night Live": Originating as "NBC's Saturday Night," it came out of nowhere (well, actually Chicago's Second City comedy club was a primary source) and thrust upon the public an impressive all-star cast of now household name entertainers: John Belushi, Gilda Radner, Dan Akroyd, Garrett Morris and Jane Curtin, soon to be followed by other staples including Eddie Murphy, John Candy, Chevy Chase and Bill Murray.

Their skits and satire are the stuff of legends. I am not going to bother researching the years or chronology (some of these might have been early 1980s rather than 1970s), but here are a few memories:

What middle-aged Baby Boomer who watched the show as a teen could forget the "Weekend Update" spoof of 60 Minutes involving Akroyd and Curtin. ("Jane, you ignorant slut!"). Or how about Radner's Emily Litella ("Never mind") and Roseanne Roseannadanna. Then there was Lily Tomlin's telephone operator Ernestine ("One ringy dingy..."); Murphy's parody of Fred Rogers in "Mr. Robinson's Neighborhood"; Chevy Chase lampooning President Gerald Ford; the gumby-like "Mr. Bill" character ("Oh, no!"); and the Blues Brothers (cover of Sam & Dave's "Soul Man")...

Granted, sometimes the humor was left-wing and counter-culture in nature, but that's par for the course. Comedians by their very nature tend to lean left, because they exist to push the envelope. They operate in a malleable universe without absolutes and devoid of parameters. But the SNL humor was original, clever and had some real wit and bite to it. It was not the crude, often mean-spirited F-bomb stew that passes for humor today.

As I've often said, you don't want your accountant or lawyer up on stage trying to entertain or kick out the jams; nor do you want a stand-up clown or rock star representing you in court or doing your taxes. There's a time and a place for everything, and the mid-1970s was a great era for the Not Ready for Prime Time Players.

Too bad my little town doesn't have an Olympic Cafe. Boy, would I love to stroll in there and shout: "Cheeseborger/Cheesborger/Cheeps/Pepsi!....No Coke; Pepsi!"