One thing I've started to notice a lot in the last several years is how people seem to be declaring that something is X and then, when called upon to provide evidence that supports the assertion, demand that someone needs to prove that something is not X - else they'll keep on declaring that this thing is X. The Bloogeyman is not a philosopher, but he did take one philosophy and one logic class in college (yup, that's right - you're reading a college educated blogger!). This line of thinking is called `proving a negative' - that is, you're calling on someone to prove that something doesn't exist/didn't' happen/isn't true. The fundamental problem with this line of `logic' is that it is false - you cannot prove a broadly asserted negative!

Here's an example: Let's say you call up the Bloogeyman and say "You're gay!". And I say "No, I'm not", then you say "Prove it!"...

Well, last weekend the Bloogeyman was busy trying to install a new water heater. Now, if you've ever had your water heater break down you know two things: 1) Until you've installed a new water heater life is a living hell because you don't have hot water and 2) While fairly simple devices, water heaters are a major pain in the ass to install.

First of all, you have to haul the old, rusty water heater out. I'm not sure when my old water heater was made, but it weighs 250 lbs (no joke) and nearly gave me a hernia on four separate occasions. Of course, the Bloogeyman is no hulk, he had someone else helping him, but I'll be damned if it still wasn't heavier than Dick Cheney after a trip to the all-you-can-eat buffet...

Trust has always played an important role in American politics. Americans will follow a leader they trust even when the path is difficult and the journey is painful. One of the greatest examples of American trust is the amount of trust patriots put into George Washington. It was trust that kept the ragged Continental Army camped out through a harsh winter in Valley Forge. George Washington led his 11,000 troops to Valley Forge in December of 1777. George Washington himself commented on the dire state of his army, saying "...you might have tracked the army from White Marsh to Valley Forge by the blood of their feet". By June of 1778, 2,500 had died of disease and cold - they did not desert - indeed, you might say they died because of their trust in their leader.

Last time we talked about what the Demo's strategy should be regarding Gannongate(is it just me or has this story totally faded?)

This time we'll focus on the Republican strategy for suppressing this story and making sure that by this time next spring everyone's saying, "Gannon, who?"

Republicans have three strengths and two potential weaknesses when facing this whole situation. The Republicans' strengths: control of the Executive Branch (the Justice Department decides whether to investigate the Gannon affair), Congress (Congress will be unable to pass a request for a special investigator), and the courts - any investigation need only be undertaken under an enormous amount of pressure and public outrage.

Last time  we introduced the iNCAA Tournament(Iraqi National Control and Authority Tournament) bracket...

Welcome again to our coverage of March Madness. Last time, we presented some opening comments and let everyone take a look at the bracket. This time, the Bloogeyman is proud to present Gumby Bryant and Mad Johnnen - they will be helping us take a closer look at the bracket. First, we'll break down the bracket and look at each region - there's some exciting stuff going on here, and plenty of controversy - then we'll wrap it up by looking at the bracket as a whole along with some possible outcomes. Here's the `North' region of the bracket, I'll let Gumby and Mad take it from here:

Well, March Madness has arrived and it looks to be a doozy. In fact, I'm a little late to the party because by my count March Madness actually started two years ago: I just never got around to filling out my brackets. Of course, I'm talking about Iraqi March Madness - the biggest, baddest bracket fest ever. So, sharpen your pencils because, without further ado, here is the bracket:

Last time we used our noggins to try to figure out who possible could have Got Gannon's Cannon?

But, let's get serious for a moment... In this part we'll talk strategy, first from the Democratic perspective.

By now, you're all familiar with the main points of this story/emerging scandal. We know that a person with questionable journalistic credentials gained access to the daily White House press briefings. We also know that the person in question worked for a right-wing news organization which didn't have exactly an exemplary record as a news entity.

Previously, we have talked about why we think Gannongate is important, deduced what was happening in the White House, did a redux on why we were able to ascertain what was going on in the White House, and now, finally, we get to use our vast logical and deductive powers for a truly profound purpose: guessing who got Gannon's cannon!