Politically speaking, things are kind of weird right now. The Congress is in the middle of it's two week spring break, the "President" is off pretending to be a cowboy and clearing brush on his Crawford Ranch, and I am left here to twiddle my thumbs until they come back to Washington and come back to blows. The only things we are currently getting is a whole lot of political posturing through the media. Frankly, I am more than a little bored with all of that and I am ready to get back to the meat and potatoes of a couple weeks ago: the investigations, the bills passed even with threats of veto, the subpoenas, the lights, the glamour! *Sigh* Soon enough.

While we wait, I just wanted to kill some time by doing a little psycho-analysis of my friends on the 'right', hence the title of today's blog. First off, what is up with the "disembodied balls"? That sounds kind of icky and gross, huh? Well, let me explain what I mean by that. Whenever I dip my toes into the often murky waters of political talk on the 'right' (mostly during the commercial breaks that Air America Radio takes), I invariably find some talking head blabbering on and on about this Iraq war. More often then not this "talk", as it were, centers itself around a certain level of misplaced machismo. If you have listened at all, you will know what I am talking about. It is the same stuff coming from the mouths of the Fox "newies" and of most members of the Administration. It is this chest pounding, tough talking, strong and proud talk about things like "we need to fight them there so we don't have to fight them here", or "we do not negotiate with terrorists", or calling the Iraqis "thugs, assassins, or (my new personal favorite) suiciders". So what is wrong with this talk? Why is it misplaced? Well, it is coming from the mouths of "tough guys" who never walked the walk. There is plenty of information out there on the internets (just google chickenhawks). I won't go into the details of that right now. Suffice it to say that the louder and tougher someone today is talking about Iraq, the more unlikely it is that he or she ever served, will ever serve, or would even let their children serve in the military. This "we" they talk about so often is, well, it is their balls detached from their bodies and firmly pinned to the backs of the brave young men and women (mostly from poorer families, I know, I was there) who are doing their dirty work.

And as for the "Daddy Syndrome"? I tend to think, from my somewhat limited observations on the matter, that the people on the 'right' (I am mostly talking hard 'right' here) need someone to follow blindly. They need a Daddy figure to tell them what to do, what to think, what words to say, etc. This Daddy figure is not to be questioned nor talked back to, and is to be emulated and praised at all cost, even when he is clearly doing something wrong. Whenever someone else talks bad about Daddy and points out his glaring mistakes, they must be attacked personally. It doesn't matter if what the attacker is saying might be true and should at least be debated, they attacked Daddy so they must die! If Daddy makes a 180 degree turn overnight in what he has been saying and what has been repeated and defended? Doesn't matter, Daddy obviously has a good reason for that, just defend this new position and deny that it totally contradicts what was said yesterday. SERIOUSLY, I mean come on. I can think of no other reason for why certain people are still following this "President" so nobly than to think they must have Daddy issues. Can you? I would like to hear an opposing viewpoint on this. Maybe I am way off base here. I don't know.

Anyway, here is to hoping this week ends soon so I can get back to the more meaty news of the day! Thanks for reading...