Another Unknowledgeable Hack...

Maybe.... Maybe Not.

2006-06-01T13:19:00.000-06:00

I am thinking about writing here again...not sure yet. Possibly though....I guess we will just have to see. Do you think I can get in the swing again?

Hmmmm....maybe I just have.

Then again....Maybe Not.

New direction for Bush Administration...XXX

2005-12-26T09:17:00.000-07:00

Over the last five years the Bush Administration has laid in bed with Neocons, corporate lobbyists and (I feel) most significantly, the religious right.

Well no more my friends, no more.

In a stunning reversal of strategy, the Bush Administration has taken up on the side of....Playboy Playmates. Yes, playmates. Really, if you had been watching closely this is no surprise. First, Mary Carey- a porn star- gets invited to the White House. Now, Bush takes the side of Anna Nicole Smith.

This makes total sense to me. If you have to lay in bed with someone, wouldn't you rather it be the adult entertainment industry than a bunch of crusty old men and frigid women?

Maybe...just maybe...Bush is adopting the "Make Love not War" view of the world.

Well Mr. President, I say "Get your freak on!!!!"

So Johnny, What would you like for Christmas?

2005-12-24T11:07:00.000-07:00

Pope Benedict XVI wins diplomatic immunity in lawsuit alleging Vatican cover-up

Hey Kids!!! Just in time for Christmas! Have your faith tested!!!

The interesting point in this article is NOT that the current Pope is innocent. It is that to proceed with the lawsuit is "incompatible with the United States' foreign policy interests."

24.5% of U.S. citizens identify themselves as Roman Catholic. According to an independent survey, there were 11,000 instances of sexual abuse by a priest between 1950 and 2002. During that time there were 110,000 priests serving in the Catholic Church in the United States...

Number of priests involved- 4,450 Percentage of abusive priests- 4.5%

Wow. I completely understand. There is no reason to worry about a cover-up. Obviously there is no problem here.

Why would anyone be "above the law" when it comes to the safety of our children?

So what if it is Christmas

2005-12-24T08:42:00.000-07:00

Why is Christmas such a big deal?

Before you begin mentally reviewing the comments you are going to make about the birth of our Savior, good will towards men and good ol' traditions- let me finish. Then you can let me know how many different ways my soul will burn in hell. (Please be creative. I do appreciate that.)

Let's start with Christmas is the celebration of the birth of our Savior, Jesus Christ. No, it's not. Don't believe me? Look it up.

First of all, the best historical references we have actually put the birth of Jesus in mid April. However, it would be strange to celebrate his death before his birth each year...hey, maybe if we verified the approximate time of his death we could fix that. I somehow doubt it was the Friday before the 1st weekend in April...(do you want me to tell you why it IS on that date? OK, give me a sec.)

Christmas is set on December 25th because that is when the Roman Empire wanted it. Why? Because the Festival of Satunalia was already on that day! It was the celebration of the winter solstice. The Roman Empire was not blind to the fact that if you wanted people to go along with the new state sponsored religion, then you needed to replace their current festivals with others that were familiar.

BTW- Easter was originally the celebration of the vernal equinox. You know, spring = rebirth. Hmmmmm....most convenient, is it not?

Now I could literally write pages about all so-called 'Christian' traditions that actually were stolen from other, earlier religions. Ever read the Egyptian Book of the Dead? If you have that sitting on your coffee table (as most people do...) then you will find the Ten Commandments. Such a coincidence since the followers of God had just left Egypt.

Anyway- I digress....

The first point I always hear is that exact dates do not matter. We are celebrating the idea. I can understand that. However, you are celebrating the birth of the Son of God...I would assume it would be important to get it right.

So...we are celebrating the idea. The idea that God gave us his son to wash away our sins...by nailing him to a cross. (Now that is twisted.) How are we celebrating it? How many of you have gone to church recently? Or, even in the past year? (Easter does not count) How many of you associate the term "Merry Christmas" to religion except in some vague way?

I just Googled "Merry Christmas" and this is what I found- www.merry-christmas.com...brought to you by the elves!!! Little pagan wood creatures are now bringing you Christmas. I went three pages back in my search and not one site referenced anything having to do with Jesus...although I did find some Clay Aiken Christmas music, so it was close.

I think I have made my point about the religious connection to modern Christmas. Now on to good will towards men...

Hmmmm....can I just call "bullshit" now?

I will admit that, generally, people seem to be a bit nicer around Christmas. Of course they also work less and are not sober as much, so I don't think it is the holiday as much as the break we all get at the end of another long year.

Damn I'm cheery, huh?

Finally- good ol' traditions. OK, it is hard to argue with tradition. Christmas is the only time of year that many full families get together. Get together to eat too much, drink too much and bitch about and at each other...good times! To travel long distances to go somewhere they would probably rather not be and exchange gifts they probably cannot afford. Got to love those traditions...

So what is my point you ask? Did I waste my time (and yours) just to bitch?! Maybe...a little bit.

I am tired of hearing about the so-call "War on Christmas" when the majority of us do not even celebrate Christmas in any sort of religious manner. If you want to have a war on Christmas then look into yourself. Realize that you should treat others better and be thankful of what you have every day of the year. Maybe take that knowledge and pass it down to 'little junior snotnose' instead of hoping he/she might like you for a day because you managed to get an XBox 360 off of Ebay for 3 times what it is worth.

How about this- make an effort to improve someone's life that you do not know...and no, you don't get to deduct it on your taxes.

If you can pull that off, then I have another challenge for you....try to do this all year long. How's that for Christmas spirit?!

Now this is not some "Holier than Thou" type of statement. I am just as (if not more so) guilty of all of these things. So maybe that is the point of all this....

I promise to try harder in the upcoming year if all of you do too.

Oh yeah....

Merry F*cking Christmas

Maybe if this was the Bin Laden we were after...

2005-12-23T12:55:00.000-07:00

Bin Laden's niece bares much in GQ spread

...We would look harder.

CNN -The "Communist News Network"?

2005-12-23T11:51:00.000-07:00

I had a conversation the other night with a friend of mine that has left me confused. I was informed that CNN, MSNBC and all of the other network news shows are secretly promoting communism to the American public. I did not know this!

In addition to this revelation I was informed that FOX News is the last bastion against this insidious invasion of our culture...you know, "The American Way of Life".

Now I know what you are thinking- When did Mr. O'Reilly and I get so close? Is he as much of an ass off camera as on? And- Did he really sexually harass one of his assistants?

Fortunately for myself, this conversation was not with Mr. O'Reilly...I could not afford either the attorney fees nor the therapy needed after that.

This is the confusing part- I consider this individual to be an intelligent and free-thinking individual. He is an artist for pete's sake! (a darn good one at that) So why does he think this? Obviously, I do not think of him as less intelligent just because his views and my views are different... That would be very Republican, I mean wrong of me, wouldn't it?

I will admit that during this conversation I had 'enjoyed' the holiday spirit(s) a bit much, so I cannot remember all of the arguments he put forth to 'prove' his point. Yet, I have thought about this since then and still cannot understand.

We are already fighting the 'War on Terror' and the 'War against Islamofascism' and the 'War against multiculturalism' and the 'War against Christmas' and the 'War yet to be Named'....well, you get my point...

Now those damn Commies are back too?! How can we possibly win?!

Why is it that everything is now a 'War'? Why is it that we, as Americans, are drawn into this "circle the wagons! the injuns are coming!" type of mentality? Is it the so called 'Liberal Media?'

Is it true that FOX is the only network that has uncovered this plot? If so, are they only letting certain people know, while the rest of us are being blindly converted?

I do not know the answers to these questions. However, the voices in my head are telling me that I must take my blue pill now and get my Che Guevara t-shirt out of the dryer...I never feel quite right when I do not have it on....

Workers of the World, Unite!!!!
(Why did I just write that? Oh well, no worries.)

Damn women... no self control.

2005-12-20T22:08:00.000-07:00

Let's see... I believe my last confession, err, I mean post, was on September 14th. That tragic day when I finally had the revelation, NO! the epiphany! that I was spending far too much time in front of my computer thinking that I could make the world a better...or at least more cynical...place.

A great deal has happened since that time. Want to hear about it? Exactly. I wouldn't either.

Even though I have not written in the last couple of months, I still read many of the blogs that I would 'banter' with before. That is the reason for this post. It seems that Ginger at Pell-Mell has infected me. From my understanding, the Bush Administration has known of this upcoming pandemic for quite some time, yet could not spare resources to develop a vaccine....

I mean, think about it- between the cost of the 'War on Terror' and paying journalists for good stories about the 'War on Terror', the coffers are just about empty.... just enough left for domestic spying and some God forsaken bridge in Alaska.

And really- If God loves you then you won't get sick anyway....right? RIGHT?!

(You didn't think I could just write without some political commentary now could you? I would hope you know me better than that!)

After frantically researching several prominent medical websites (Centers for Disease Control, WebMD, Playboy and Maxim to be exact) I found the answer. The only cure is to list five things about myself that most people would not know, and pass the infection on to others....sounds vaguely like "The Ring", does it not?

Since nobody can make you do something that you did not want to do anyway...

1. I have never been to college. Most people just assume that I did I guess. The certificate from Stanford the I printed and framed may have something to do with this...but I am not totally convinced.

2. I had a true shot at training with the U.S. Olympic swim team. I took up smoking instead. Hmmmm....one of my many outstanding life choices... And yes, breaststroke was my favorite... you bunch of sickos.

3. When I was a child I had such flat feet that I had to wear special shoes with super-arched insoles. Not a big deal, right? At that time, the only shoes available with those corrective insoles were black & white Stride-Rights. Seen Peanuts? Charlie Brown's shoes? I'm still in therapy over that.

4. If I could have my dream job, it would be restoring and modernizing old cars. Not the regular classics, but odd, really cool cars. For example- Why couldn't you take an old MG Midget and put in a turbocharged, fuel injected 4 cylinder, 4 wheel anti-lock disc brakes and a front and rear independent suspension? Yet leave the car looking as it originally did? That would be fun.

5. One of the main functions of my job is to interact with a variety of personalities, which I can usually do pretty well. However, I have very few people that I would call friends, much less close friends. This is by choice. I do not 'bond' with many individuals on that level.

Damn. That took longer than expected. Now, to lift this curse I must infect five others- Politik, 44 South Street, The Second Opinion, RAI and Reconstitution. Sorry, but better you than I!

I must admit, it has felt somewhat strange to write again. Yet enjoyable at the same time. I believe I may need to get back to this...there is still so much cynism to spread.

Blogging Hiatus

2005-09-14T16:42:00.000-06:00

"Greed is good." -Michael Douglas, Wall Street

I am on a hiatus while chasing the all-powerful dollar...hey, we all have our religion...mine will buy you a Porsche.

'Compassionate Conservatism'

2005-09-06T14:44:00.000-06:00

(Hat-tip: Reconstitution)

Quote link: Yahoo! News

Commenting on the facilities that have been set up for the evacuees -- cots crammed side-by-side in a huge stadium where the lights never go out and the sound of sobbing children never completely ceases -- former First Lady Barbara Bush concluded that the poor people of New Orleans had lucked out.

"Everyone is so overwhelmed by the hospitality. And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this, this is working very well for them," Mrs. Bush told American Public Media's "Marketplace" program, before returning to her multi-million dollar Houston home.

On the tape of the interview, Mrs. Bush chuckles audibly as she observes just how great things are going for families that are separated from loved ones, people who have been forced to abandon their homes and the only community where they have ever lived, and parents who are explaining to children that their pets, their toys and in some cases their friends may be lost forever. Perhaps the former first lady was amusing herself with the notion that evacuees without bread could eat cake.

Keith Olbermann

2005-09-06T10:25:00.000-06:00

The "city" Of Louisiana

***Exactly what I have been saying....

SECAUCUS — Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff said it all, starting his news briefing Saturday afternoon: "Louisiana is a city that is largely underwater..."
Well there's your problem right there.

If ever a slip-of-the-tongue defined a government's response to a crisis, this was it.

The seeming definition of our time and our leaders had been their insistence on slashing federal budgets for projects that might’ve saved New Orleans. The seeming characterization of our government that it was on vacation when the city was lost, and could barely tear itself away from commemorating V.J. Day and watching Monty Python's Flying Circus, to at least pretend to get back to work. The seeming identification of these hapless bureaucrats: their pathetic use of the future tense in terms of relief they could’ve brought last Monday and Tuesday — like the President, whose statements have looked like they’re being transmitted to us by some kind of four-day tape-delay.

But no. The incompetence and the ludicrous prioritization will forever be symbolized by one gaffe by of the head of what is ironically called “The Department of Homeland Security”: “Louisiana is a city…”

Politician after politician — Republican and Democrat alike — has paraded before us, unwilling or unable to shut off the "I-Me" switch in their heads, condescendingly telling us about how moved they were or how devastated they were — congenitally incapable of telling the difference between the destruction of a city and the opening of a supermarket.

And as that sorry recital of self-absorption dragged on, I have resisted editorial comment. The focus needed to be on the efforts to save the stranded — even the internet's meager powers were correctly devoted to telling the stories of the twin disasters, natural... and government-made.

But now, at least, it is has stopped getting exponentially worse in Mississippi and Alabama and New Orleans and Louisiana (the state, not the city). And, having given our leaders what we know now is the week or so they need to get their act together, that period of editorial silence I mentioned, should come to an end.

No one is suggesting that mayors or governors in the afflicted areas, nor the federal government, should be able to stop hurricanes. Lord knows, no one is suggesting that we should ever prioritize levee improvement for a below-sea-level city, ahead of $454 million worth of trophy bridges for the politicians of Alaska.

But, nationally, these are leaders who won re-election last year largely by portraying their opponents as incapable of keeping the country safe. These are leaders who regularly pressure the news media in this country to report the reopening of a school or a power station in Iraq, and defies its citizens not to stand up and cheer. Yet they couldn't even keep one school or power station from being devastated by infrastructure collapse in New Orleans — even though the government had heard all the "chatter" from the scientists and city planners and hurricane centers and some group whose purposes the government couldn't quite discern... a group called The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

And most chillingly of all, this is the Law and Order and Terror government. It promised protection — or at least amelioration — against all threats: conventional, radiological, or biological.

It has just proved that it cannot save its citizens from a biological weapon called standing water.

Mr. Bush has now twice insisted that, "we are not satisfied," with the response to the manifold tragedies along the Gulf Coast. I wonder which "we" he thinks he's speaking for on this point. Perhaps it's the administration, although we still don't know where some of them are. Anybody seen the Vice President lately? The man whose message this time last year was, 'I'll Protect You, The Other Guy Will Let You Die'?

I don't know which 'we' Mr. Bush meant.

For many of this country's citizens, the mantra has been — as we were taught in Social Studies it should always be — whether or not I voted for this President — he is still my President. I suspect anybody who had to give him that benefit of the doubt stopped doing so last week. I suspect a lot of his supporters, looking ahead to '08, are wondering how they can distance themselves from the two words which will define his government — our government — "New Orleans."

For him, it is a shame — in all senses of the word. A few changes of pronouns in there, and he might not have looked so much like a 21st Century Marie Antoinette. All that was needed was just a quick "I'm not satisfied with my government's response." Instead of hiding behind phrases like "no one could have foreseen," had he only remembered Winston Churchill's quote from the 1930's. "The responsibility," of government, Churchill told the British Parliament "for the public safety is absolute and requires no mandate. It is in fact, the prime object for which governments come into existence."

In forgetting that, the current administration did not merely damage itself — it damaged our confidence in our ability to rely on whoever is in the White House.

As we emphasized to you here all last week, the realities of the region are such that New Orleans is going to be largely uninhabitable for a lot longer than anybody is yet willing to recognize. Lord knows when the last body will be found, or the last artifact of the levee break, dug up. Could be next March. Could be 2100. By then, in the muck and toxic mire of New Orleans, they may even find our government's credibility.

Somewhere, in the City of Louisiana.

***He just knows how to say it better...

How to Kill an Elephant

2005-09-04T21:42:00.000-06:00

***I want to make it clear that I am not writing this in a smug or gloating tone. Obviously, I am not the only one who is thinking these thoughts. Please keep that in mind while reading.

I believe Mother Nature has managed to do what all of the Bush Administration's foes have not. End the pro-conservative push across America. Actually, that is not entirely accurate. To say that Hurricane Katrina is responsible would be to give the hurricane far too much credit. What Katrina brought was natural disaster, what the Bush Administration has done is political disaster.

"Compassionate Conservatism", the catchy phrase that the neo-cons invented for the 2000 presidential campaign, has come back to haunt them in their sleep. Six days after Hurricane Katrina, this is what the American people see-

White House shifts blame for Katrina response

Bush, who has been criticized, even by supporters, for the delayed response to the disaster, used his weekly radio address to put responsibility for the failure on lower levels of government.

Storm exposed disarray at the top

"It's such an irony I hate to say it, but we have less capability today than we did on September 11," said a veteran FEMA official involved in the hurricane response. "We are so much less than what we were in 2000," added another senior FEMA official. "We've lost a lot of what we were able to do then."

Scarborough Country; A National Disgrace

I have got to tell you, I have been involved in a lot of hurricane relief before, and what I have been seeing these past few days is nothing short of a national disgrace.

Those storms started hitting on Sunday, and yet, four full days later, still, we just aren't seeing emergency relief agents on the ground, in the neighborhoods that have been affected the most. There's video that we have been taking all throughout the day of people that simply aren't getting water. They are not getting food. They are not getting the basic necessities. It's a disgrace here. But if you think it's a disgrace here, the situation in New Orleans is beyond description. The Associated Press reported yesterday, Ã“storm victims raped and beaten inside the convention center; 88 officers also beaten back by angry mobs.Ã”

New Orleans Times-Picayune: Open Letter to the President

In a nationally televised interview Thursday night, he said his agency hadn't known until that day that thousands of storm victims were stranded at the Ernest N. Morial Convention Center. He gave another nationally televised interview the next morning and said, "We've provided food to the people at the Convention Center so that they've gotten at least one, if not two meals, every single day."

Lies don't get more bald-faced than that, Mr. President.

Yet, when you met with Mr. Brown Friday morning, you told him, "You're doing a heck of a job."

That's unbelievable.

Face the Nation, Bob Schieffer

Finally, a personal thought. We have come through what may have been one of the worst weeks in America's history, a week in which government at every level failed the people it was created to serve. There is no purpose for government except to improve the lives of its citizens. Yet as scenes of horror that seemed to be coming from some Third World country flashed before us, official Washington was like a dog watching television. It saw the lights and images, but did not seem to comprehend their meaning or see any link to reality.

This Week, Senator Mary Landrieu

"If one person criticises them or says one more thing including the President of the US, he will be hearing from me. One more word about it after this show airs and I might likely punch him, literally"

"The President could have funded it, he cut it out of the budget. Is that the most pitiful sight you have ever seen in your life?-One little crane."

Local Officials Criticize Federal Government Over Response

Col. Terry Ebbert, director of homeland security for New Orleans, concurred and he was particularly pungent in his criticism. Asserting that the whole recovery operation had been "carried on the backs of the little guys for four goddamn days," he said "the rest of the goddamn nation can't get us any resources for security."

New Orleans Left to the Dead and Dying

Nearby, a woman lay dead in a wheelchair on the front steps. A man was covered in a black drape with a dry line of blood running to the gutter, where it had pooled. Another had lain on a chaise lounge for four days, his stocking feet peeking out from under a quilt.

By mid-afternoon, only pockets of stragglers remained in the streets around the convention center, and New Orleans paramedics began carting away the dead.

A once-vibrant city of 480,000 people, overtaken just days ago by floods, looting, rape and arson, was now an empty, sodden tomb.

Bush Press Conference

We've got a lot of rebuilding to do. First, we're going to save lives and stabilize the situation. And then we're going to help these communities rebuild. The good news is -- and it's hard for some to see it now -- that out of this chaos is going to come a fantastic Gulf Coast, like it was before. Out of the rubbles of Trent Lott's house -- he's lost his entire house -- there's going to be a fantastic house. And I'm looking forward to sitting on the porch. (Laughter.)

GOVERNOR RILEY: He'll be glad to have you.

The American public was already growing weary of current policies. The President's approval rating was at an all time low and some Republicans were already taking steps to distance themselves from the President.

Some have come out publically against the President in recent days-

Rep. Charles W. Boustany Jr., (R-La.), said he spent the past 48 hours urging the Bush administration to send help. "I started making calls and trying to impress upon the White House and others that something needed to be done," he said. "The state resources were being overwhelmed, and we needed direct federal assistance, command and control, and security -- all three of which are lacking."

Now, the same fundamentalists who have been trying so hard to push their agenda through the Republican Party have shown what true 'Christian Compassion' is all about-

Rev. Bill Shanks, pastor of New Covenant Fellowship of New Orleans, also sees God's mercy in the aftermath of Katrina -- but in a different way. Shanks says the hurricane has wiped out much of the rampant sin common to the city.

The pastor explains that for years he has warned people that unless Christians in New Orleans took a strong stand against such things as local abortion clinics, the yearly Mardi Gras celebrations, and the annual event known as "Southern Decadence" -- an annual six-day "gay pride" event scheduled to be hosted by the city this week -- God's judgment would be felt.

Ã“New Orleans now is abortion free. New Orleans now is Mardi Gras free. New Orleans now is free of Southern Decadence and the sodomites, the witchcraft workers, false religion -- it's free of all of those things now," Shanks says. "God simply, I believe, in His mercy purged all of that stuff out of there -- and now we're going to start over again."

2006 is an election year. Sometime in 2006 is when New Orleans will become habitable again. Do you think that people will forget what has transpired over this last week? Do you think that 500,000+ refugees will forget when it comes time to vote? Or what about the cities 'hosting' them?

The outrage across the country is palpable. It spans all economic, political and racial lines. Voters will demand change, and they will get it. The question is, who will the Republican Party turn to?

I have one bit of advice on that...think Moderate.

I also have a prediction- The 'New Conservative' movement is dead. Destroyed not by it's foes, but by it's own incompetence and arrogance.

***I am not claiming this to be a 'Republican' or even 'Conservative' disaster. Incompetence comes in all shapes and sizes. However, this falls squarely on the Bush Administration's shoulders.

It's Official- God struck down New Orleans!!!

2005-09-03T12:01:00.000-06:00

(Hat-tip: Reconstitution)

New Orleans Residents: God's Mercy Evident in Katrina's Wake
Agape Press, American Family Association

Two Christian leaders in New Orleans are testifying to God's mercy in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. One suggests that the death toll could have been much higher had it not been for God's mercy -- and the other that God may have used the hurricane to purge wickedness from the city.

Rev. Bill Shanks, pastor of New Covenant Fellowship of New Orleans, also sees God's mercy in the aftermath of Katrina -- but in a different way. Shanks says the hurricane has wiped out much of the rampant sin common to the city.
The pastor explains that for years he has warned people that unless Christians in New Orleans took a strong stand against such things as local abortion clinics, the yearly Mardi Gras celebrations, and the annual event known as "Southern Decadence" -- an annual six-day "gay pride" event scheduled to be hosted by the city this week -- God's judgment would be felt.

ÂNew Orleans now is abortion free. New Orleans now is Mardi Gras free. New Orleans now is free of Southern Decadence and the sodomites, the witchcraft workers, false religion -- it's free of all of those things now," Shanks says. "God simply, I believe, in His mercy purged all of that stuff out of there -- and now we're going to start over again."

The New Orleans pastor is adamant. Christians, he says, need to confront sin. "It's time for us to stand up against wickedness so that God won't have to deal with that wickedness," he says.

New Orleans...a modern day Sodom and Gomorrah. Outstanding. I knew it was just a matter of time until Hurricane Katrina and the aftermath was the resident's fault.

These 'false prophets' disgust me.

I am actually thinking about believing in Hell on the hope that these f*ckwads spend eternity there.

You Get What You Pay For

2005-09-01T23:47:00.000-06:00

Like most people, I have been shocked at the events unfolding in New Orleans. I cannot completely grasp the level of destruction and chaos that is enveloping that city. I fear for what will happen to the nearly half a million people with no homes, no jobs and very little hope.

Of all the stories coming out of this city, one completely shocked me...

Before we get into that, let's cover some basic background information.

We knew this would happen. Elementary school science says that a city in a hurricane region, which sits below sea level and is surrounded on three sides by water has good reason to be worried. History tells us that this has happened before.

The Army Corp of Engineers designed levees to help prevent just this sort of catastrophe.

FEMA ran a 'worst-case scenario' drill last year to test their readiness to what they call, "one of the worst possible disasters to the United States."

Why then, did the Bush Administration ignore the importance of protecting a major metropolitan city?

Why then, did the Bush Administration ignore the threat to 25% of the nation's oil production and refining capability?

Why?!

According to Reuters, the Bush Administration diverted funds for the maintenance and improvement of the New Orleans levee system to help pay for the Iraq war, Homeland Security and federal tax cuts. These funding cuts were not just for 2005, but for 2003 and 2004 as well.

If the funds had been available according to Mike Parker, a former Mississippi congressman, "Levees would have been higher, levees would have been bigger, there would have been other pumps put in."

White House spokesman Scott McClellen said the administration has funded flood control efforts adequately.

Really?

Since 2001, the Army Corps has requested $496 million for the maintenance and improvement of the New Orleans levee system on the Mississippi river side. The Bush Administration budgeted $166 million...

33% of the requested funds.

The Army Corps of Engineers requested $99 million to shore up the levees along Lake Ponchartrain. The Bush administration budgeted $22 million.

22% of the requested funds.

Once again, the Bush Administration says they have funded flood control adequately.

We need to be clear about something here. The funding requests by the Army Corps of Engineers were not an agency trying to 'pad' it's numbers to get the funding it actually needed after adjustments were made.

This was funding already authorized by Congress in 1995. Remember 1995? Before some crazy, alcoholic Texan was in the White House, before this country was spending over $1 billion per day in Iraq? Remember? When the biggest scandal was whether the President was 'enjoying' the Oval Office a bit too much?

According to the New Orleans City Business, in early 2004 the President proposed spending less than 20% of what the Army Corps said was needed to maintain...maintain...the levees on Lake Ponchartrain, because of the rising costs of the Iraq war.

In June of 2004, the Army Corps of Engineers was reduced to begging for $2 million for urgent work that Washington was unable (unwilling?) to pay for, from the East Jefferson Levee Authority, a local agency.

The agency authorized the money, then on July 1, 2004 paid an additional $250,000 because stretches of the levee in Metaire had sunk by four feet.

After the 2004 hurricane season- the worst in decades- the Bush Administration cut the budget from $36.5 million to $10.4 million.

No new projects were started due to lack of funding.

The Army Corps of Engineers proposed a study in 2004, at the cost of $4 million, to see what New Orleans must do to protect itself from a Category 4 or 5 hurricane. The Bush Administration offered $300,000, which New Orleans matched. The money was removed from the 2005 federal budget.

What did we save? The 35th largest city in the United States? Thousands of lives? Billions in lost revenues? Or...how about the U.S. economy?

Watch the news, read the blogs, and then try to figure out how you would explain that this administration felt it was more important to divert the money needed to protect this city, these people, elsewhere.

It's All in How You Look at It.

2005-08-30T16:36:00.000-06:00

Bush compares Iraq war to WWII

President likens September 11th attacks to Pearl Harbor

President Bush had the gall today to compare his vision for spreading democracy to Franklin D. Roosevelt. Yeah right, whatever...

Now, I see the comparison between Pearl Harbor and September 11th. Unprovoked attacks on the United States. However, World War II and Iraq have very little in common other than that. I think the word 'WORLD' makes that evident. Oh yeah, and the preemptive strike part...

This is what President Bush said-

"As we mark this anniversary, we are again a nation at war. Once again war came to our shores with a surprise attack that killed thousands in cold blood,"

Here is how the speech should have gone-

"As we mark this anniversary, we are again a nation at war. Once again war came to our shores with a surprise attack that killed thousands in cold blood... ...and just as if on that fateful day in 1941, President Roosevelt had invaded Mexico in response to the Pearl Harbor attack- I have invaded Iraq. Don't you people see? Don't you see the logic? We've got to carry on. We've got to push through my dream of cheaper tequila- I mean oil- for all. Especially for all my friends. hehehehe"

"Franklin Roosevelt refused to accept that democracy was finished... ...I refuse to accept that 50.8% is NOT a mandate. Get it? Get it? hehehehe... Where was I? Oh yeah, I'm like Roosevelt. But I'm not like Roosevelt. I can walk, see? I can dance. And I can shove my cowboy boot right up your ass if you don't agree."

"Once again we will not rest until victory is America's and our freedom is secure... ...From all them damn A-rabs. Except the A-rabs who we like, they're OK. hehehehe"

"The freedom that was born of your sacrifice has lifted millions of God's children across the Earth... ...Just like me. But I like protectin' all those children in test tubes. hehehehe You know? Good, God fearin' children, not those damn heathens in the rest of the world. hehehehe"

"Did I tell you I can dance?"
***********************************************************************
Before you get all hot and bothered, ready to explain to me all the similarities between Iraq and WWII...lighten up, it's a joke.

However...I'm sure that Roosevelt is turning over in his grave right now.

Holy Crap!!!

2005-08-27T11:34:00.000-06:00

(Hat-tip: Reconstitution)

I am merely going to post the original article from 'Capitol Hill Blue'. I welcome all comments on this. Should be interesting...

While President George W. Bush travels around the country in a last-ditch effort to sell his Iraq war, White House aides scramble frantically behind the scenes to hide the dark mood of an increasingly angry leader who unleashes obscenity-filled outbursts at anyone who dares disagree with him.

“I’m not meeting again with that goddamned bitch,” Bush screamed at aides who suggested he meet again with Cindy Sheehan, the war-protesting mother whose son died in Iraq. “She can go to hell as far as I’m concerned!”

Bush flashes the bird, something aides say he does often and has been doing since his days as governor of Texas.

Bush, administration aides confide, frequently explodes into tirades over those who protest the war, calling them “motherfucking traitors.” He reportedly was so upset over Veterans of Foreign Wars members who wore “bullshit protectors” over their ears during his speech to their annual convention that he told aides to “tell those VFW assholes that I’ll never speak to them again is they can’t keep their members under control.”

White House insiders say Bush is growing increasingly bitter over mounting opposition to his war in Iraq. Polls show a vast majority of Americans now believe the war was a mistake and most doubt the President’s honesty.

“Who gives a flying fuck what the polls say,” he screamed at a recent strategy meeting. “I’m the President and I’ll do whatever I goddamned please. They don’t know shit.”

Bush, whiles setting up for a photo op for signing the recent CAFTA bill, flipped an extended middle finger to reporters. Aides say the President often “flips the bird” to show his displeasure and tells aides who disagree with him to “go to hell” or to “go fuck yourself.” His habit of giving people the finger goes back to his days as Texas governor, aides admit, and videos of him doing so before press conferences were widely circulated among TV stations during those days. A recent video showing him shooting the finger to reporters while walking also recently surfaced.

Bush’s behavior, according to prominent Washington psychiatrist, Dr. Justin Frank, author of “Bush on the Couch: Inside the Mind of the President,” is all too typical of an alcohol-abusing bully who is ruled by fear.

To see that fear emerges, Dr. Frank says, all one has to do is confront the President. “To actually directly confront him in a clear way, to bring him out, so you would really see the bully, and you would also see the fear,” he says.

Dr. Frank, in his book, speculates that Bush, an alcoholic who brags that he gave up booze without help from groups like Alcoholics Anonymous, may be drinking again.

“Two questions that the press seems particularly determined to ignore have hung silently in the air since before Bush took office,” Dr. Frank says. “Is he still drinking? And if not, is he impaired by all the years he did spend drinking? Both questions need to be addressed in any serious assessment of his psychological state.”

Last year, Capitol Hill Blue learned the White House physician prescribed anti-depressant drugs for the President to control what aides called “violent mood swings.” As Dr. Frank also notes: “In writing about Bush's halting appearance in a press conference just before the start of the Iraq War, Washington Post media critic Tom Shales speculated that ‘the president may have been ever so slightly medicated.’”

Dr. Frank explains Bush’s behavior as all-to-typical of an alcoholic who is still in denial:

“The pattern of blame and denial, which recovering alcoholics work so hard to break, seems to be ingrained in the alcoholic personality; it's rarely limited to his or her drinking,” he says. “The habit of placing blame and denying responsibility is so prevalent in George W. Bush's personal history that it is apparently triggered by even the mildest threat.”

As I said...Holy crap!!!

Dissent...Is Not Unpatriotic.

2005-08-25T21:48:00.000-06:00

When I was a little boy I believed that my parents could do no wrong. Everything they thought, I thought. Everything they believed, I believed.

That is no longer true.

When I was 10, I thought that I would marry the first girl I kissed.

That did not happen.

When I was 13 I thought I would be an oceanographer, then a firefighter...or maybe an astronaut.

Nope. None of those happened either.

When I was 18 I wanted to be a rockstar and tour all over the world.

Yeah, that didn't happen.

When I was 21 I was very narrow minded...against race, religion and politics.

Thank God I grew up.

When I was 28 the only thing that mattered was money.

I was miserable.

When I was 30 I voted for George W. Bush.

I thought he was the better candidate.

After September 11, 2001 I was very happy with my choice.

When I was 34 I voted for John Kerry....

Are you paying attention? My opinion, my thoughts, changed. Why? Well, if you are asking that then you don't read my blog often enough. Go check out my archives. For the rest of you-

I changed my mind.

Hold on. Let's cover that again...

I changed my mind.

Such a simple thing. Something each of us does a hundred times a day. Why do we change our minds? Several reasons- new information, new perspective, reality, voices in our head, Jesus said so...blah, blah, blah. Most of the time we do not even notice. 'Hmmm...do I want the steak? Or maybe the chicken?'

Sometimes we do. Sometimes changing our mind means changing our beliefs. Now that can mess with your head. For example, when I was a little boy (probably around 9?) I asked my mom, "If the world is only 6000 years old, why are there dinosaur bones?"...yes, I really was that sort of child...

I still remember the incident perfectly. My mom was putting on makeup, leaning into the mirror to apply eyeliner..."Because dear, the Devil put them there to confuse us."

That, my friends, is the day my faith developed it's first crack. It is also the day that my parents quit knowing everything. I remember that I kept thinking that surely the Devil had better things to do...

Since I don't believe my mom is always right anymore, does that mean I don't love her anymore? I know damn well she doesn't think I am always right...but, well she never did.

Since I changed my mind, and don't support the President anymore, does that mean I don't love my country anymore?

If I don't agree with the war in Iraq, does that mean that I don't support our troops? Does that mean that I don't care about them?

If I don't agree with how we are waging the War on Terror, does that mean that I want the terrorists to win?

If I have changed my mind about how I feel America could best be served, AM I NOW ANTI-AMERICAN?!

Is that the answer? Should we all blindly follow the leader? The majority? The guy on T.V. who wants my money? If you believe that, if you believe that personal opinion is against the greater good, then you are living 60 years too late...and on the wrong continent.

I see a great deal of commentary about how this person or that person used to support the President, or used to support the war in Iraq, and now that they have changed their mind we should all disregard their opinion. Why? What if they were originally against the President, or against the war in Iraq, and are now for it? Should we still disregard their opinion?

I mean, it is the same thing, right? RIGHT?

Obviously I cannot speak for others, (my mind reading powers are still limited) so I do not always know why they may have changed their mind. However, I do know why I did. I also know that I do not love my country any less because of that.

Why has dissent become treason? What has become of this country?

"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."

"Roosevelt in the Kansas City Star", 149
May 7, 1918

Is this not true anymore?

Dissent is not unpatriotic. Dissent is not 'comforting the enemy', even if it is unpalatable to you. The opinion expressed may not be in agreement with your own...but, what about when it was? Were you so quick to express outrage? Or were you, maybe, a bit more accepting?

Think about this before you decide to pass judgment on another's patriotism. This country, your country, my country, was founded on the principle of dissent. If you think I am wrong review our history.

If you think that democracy is wonderful as long as everyone agrees with you...well, that's not democracy.

President of Tuvalu threatens U.S. -War Narrowly Averted.

2005-08-24T14:45:00.000-06:00

REITERS- Breaking news...Uncomfirmed sources say that the President of Tuvalu was overheard making disparaging remarks about United States President George W. Bush.

The U.S. State Department was quick to react, asking the Pentagon to confirm the status of several aircraft carrier battle groups in the area. It seems that planning for the anticipated invasion never went beyond the first step however.

According to Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice, "Initially we were very concerned about the immediate threat that Tuvalu could have to United States interests. Then we did some further research and realized that Tuvalu has absolutely no oil reserves."

The U.S. Navy is staying at a high level of alert for the time being, according to another source, "It took a while to figure out where Tuvalu was, so we want to be sure they do not have anything else we want before we call off the alert."

Garden Gnome Slavery on the Rise

2005-08-24T12:21:00.000-06:00

British police crack missing gnome case
Blair and Bush vow to stand together against garden gnome rights violations

In a daring early morning raid, British police found at least 40 gnomes, hedgehogs and rabbits being held against their will in central Scotland. Police on the scene described it as an evil Aladdin's cave.

"In all my years on the force, I have never seen the level of depravity that these poor garden ornaments suffered through. Horrible, horrible conditions! I even heard that they were forcing the poor gnomes to commit scandalous sex acts while they filmed them. I can't say anymore except that I will never get these images out of my head." -Detective Lake

The gnomes were forced to work 20 hour days with no food and only a Koi pond for water...

Sleeping conditions were reminiscent of Nazi concentration camps in World War II....

An outpouring of support for the gnomes and their woodland friends has erupted around the world. Christian conservatives, led by Pat Robertson, have issued this official statement-

"Garden Gnomes are blessed creatures in God's eyes. Anyone who would defile one of God's creatures in such a way should be shot. Amen."

When asked if the statement might defy the Biblical teachings of forgiveness, Pat Robertson replied-

"I know God! You don't know God! How dare you question what God wants. He told me personally to assasinate all who would stand against the garden gnomes because they are heathens. Heathens I tell you! Maybe even Communists."

This reporter was unable to continue the interview with Mr. Robertson. After his statement he made the sign of the cross, screamed, "You're one of them, aren't you?!" and skipped away.

Hopefully Mr. Robertson will feel better after his meds and a nap.

Who's Your God?

2005-08-23T13:53:00.000-06:00

Something to think about...

The other day I saw a quick piece on CNN (sorry, no link) about several Muslim clerics who are asking the justice department to allow Muslims to be sworn in on a Quran in court. I wasn't really paying attention and thought the piece was more 'filler' than anything else.

Later I started thinking about it. My first thought was, "Wow. The fundamentalists are going to fight this tooth and nail.", followed by, "Who will scream 'multiculturalism!' first?", and finally, "Who cares? It's not like it really matters."

That is where I was wrong.

I am not a religious person, so swearing on the Bible and swearing on a Sesame Street coloring book are not very different to me. I am promising to tell the truth, and if you are going to lie in court...well, then a book is probably not going to make a difference.

However, for many people swearing on the holy book of your faith is very important. It means that if you lie you have broken a covenant with God. You have made a promise to your Creator, not merely another mortal. This made me think-

If you are a Christian, would taking an oath on a Quran mean anything to you? Of course it wouldn't. It is not the word of God.

Using the same logic, a Muslim, Hindu, etc., would have no feelings about swearing on the Bible.

Ahhhh...but they would have feelings about it, same as a Christian would towards the Quran. They would feel insulted. Why?

You cannot take an oath to honesty on a book you think is wrong! If you are very religious it would be like saying an oath to Satan...well, unless you are a Satanist, then it's not all bad.

See where I am going with this?

Since the idea is to 'swear to tell the truth, nothing but the truth, so help me God', shouldn't the individual at least swear to a God they believe in?

If you are an American citizen, then you have freedom of religion. Freedom of religion extends into the courts. How can you enforce swearing on the Bible if there is no 'state' religion in the United States?

Interesting question, huh? Now try to figure out where this concept has to end. Does this right extend to ALL religions? What would American Indians swear on? What about Animists?

As for us Atheists, you could just use a copy of Charles Darwin's 'The Origin of Species'...

Democracy / Theocracy...whatever. We are Liberators!

2005-08-23T12:47:00.000-06:00

(Hat-tip: Altercation)

New Iraqi Constitution, Article 2, Paragraph 1:

"Islam is the official religion of state, and is a fundamental source for legislation."

Jalal Talabani, President of Iraq-

"I think there is an exaggeration about the strength of Islamist movements here."

Hmmm...So how will all those fundamentalists react to 'a terror organization' being the official religion of the new Iraq?

Will they now say that the Iraq war is a failure? Will they worry (rightly so) that all we have done is set up a new Islamic government that is now friendly with Iran? Will they stay out of it, and let the Iraqis decide their own fate?

Stay tuned for the next exciting episode of 'As the Sands Blow...'

Special Edition- 'People Who Really Scare Me'

2005-08-23T11:19:00.000-06:00

Pat Robertson- Founder and Chairman of the Christian Broadcasting Network (The 700 Club) and the Christian Coalition.

"Feminism encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians." -1992 GOP Convention

"Presbyterians are the spirit of the Antichrist." -The Best Democracy Money Can Buy, page 85.

"There is no such thing as separation of church and state in the Constitution. It is a lie of the left and we are not going to take it anymore." -November, 1993.

"I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war...and I don't think any oil shipments will stop." -August 22, 2005 The 700 Club.

************************************************************
What a nutjob. Yet, one million people watch the 700 Club every day...

The picture above? That is the 'Holy Spirit' filling Pat Robertson...with its' foot up his ass.

Crawford Texas Protests

2005-08-22T15:44:00.000-06:00

AP Wire- As the Crawford, Texas protests move into their 4th week it seems that several groups have decided to cash in on the ongoing media publicity...

...Some people want Canada to stop killing seals, and hope that President Bush will invade our northern neighbor if the senseless slaughter continues...

...while the original Cindy Sheehan group has been mostly replaced with the'George Bush is a nitwit' crowd normally seen outside of the White House...

...the 'Nuke 'em til they Glow' cause 'They took our Jobs!' crowd is still going strong. Mainly because they are mostly unemployed...

...and the ACLU organized a 'Gay Pride' parade. According to a spokesman for the ACLU, "We are not specifically protesting anything. We are merely utilizing our right to free speech to irritate the President."

...Sources close to the President tell us that he is taking it all in stride and recent gunfire from his ranch is, "merely the President exercising his 2nd Admendment rights."

Pat Buchanan, Hardball commentary

2005-08-18T20:22:00.000-06:00

I honestly do not know if legally I can do this. I guess I may find out one way or another. I am copying an entire commentary from Pat Buchanan. Yes, I know. Pat Buchanan...I never would have believed it either. Here it is-

Cindy Sheehan: Bush's problem today; Democrats problem tomorrow
(Pat Buchanan)

Cindy Sheehan may be George Bush’s problem today, but she and her movement pose a far greater problem for the Democratic Party tomorrow.

As a Gold Star mother of a soldier son slain in Iraq, Cindy has authenticity and moral authority. Wedded to the passion of her protest, these have made her a magnet for the White House press corps encamped in Crawford. She is becoming a household name. More than that, for this August at least, Sheehan’s is the face and voice of the antiwar movement in America.

The purity of her protest has been diluted by her association with the far Left, the extravagance of her language, and the arrival of the “Democratic operatives” to manipulate and manage her message.

Nevertheless, in a slow news month, Sheehan has helped turn the focus of national debate back to the war at a moment of vulnerability for the President. According to Newsweek, support for Bush’s handling of the war has fallen below 40%, to 34%, with 61% now disapproving of his leadership. Put bluntly, the bottom is falling out of support for Bush as Commander-in-Chief. September could see the coalescing of an antiwar movement on the campuses and in public protests.

Why is this not good news for the Democratic Party?

Here’s why. Cindy Sheehan clearly has the courage of the liberal Democrats’ convictions. In their hearts, many of them never believed in this war in Iraq, though their leaders voted for it.

But now that Cindy Sheehan has put a face on the antiwar movement and given it a voice, liberal activists will demand to know where Hillary, Biden, Edwards, Kerry and Warner are, and why they are standing with Bush in support of the war and not standing beside Cindy Sheehan.

Why is no leader in the Democratic Party giving voice to the antiwar cause with the perseverance and passion of Cindy Sheehan? Why are they all hiding in the tall grass, or making statements about how they support the war and the troops, but just disagree with how Bush has managed it. If polls are to be believed, half the nation now agrees with Cindy Sheehan.

She is temporarily filling a vacuum in American politics that been unfilled since the Iowa caucuses, 18 months ago, when the wheels came off a Dean campaign most pundits thought would take him to the nomination.

The problem for the Democrats is this: All their potential nominees -- Hillary, Biden, Kerry, Edwards, Warner -- supported the war in 2002. All support the war today. One day soon, a national Democrat, a Gene McCarthy, is going to break publicly with the DLC crowd and the party establishment on the Hill, stand up and say, “Enough! It’s time to bring the troops home.”

When that happens, the antiwar movement and its new leader will split the Democratic Party right down the middle between “Stay-the-course!” hawks and “Bring-the-boys-home!” doves, just as it did during Vietnam. And if memory serves, Vietnam eventually did far more damage to the Democratic Party than it ever did to the Party of Nixon, Reagan and Bush.

I think that Mr. Buchanan makes some excellent points. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

FRC- "We have our own tests. We don't need yours."

2005-08-18T18:45:00.000-06:00

Irony. Double Standards. Do as I say, not as I do...

"Last April I called on viewers and listeners who joined our nationwide simulcast- Justice Sunday, stopping the filibuster against people of faith, to contact their senators and urge them to oppose the unconstitutional use of religious litmus tests..."

The unconstitutional use of religious litmus tests...

I agree with that. My opinion is that church & state are two completely separate entities, and should have as little influence on each other as possible. I feel this point is written directly into the Constitution of the United States.

"...Unfortunately, Senator Durbin has chosen to ignore the Constitution and is seeking to impose a religious litmus test on Judge John Roberts..."

Hmmm...those are harsh words. What has gotten Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council, so upset? Let's see shall we?

"Senator Durbin's questioning is clearly an attempt to place Judge Roberts in the position of choosing between his faith and the law."

What? Wait. Hold on a minute. The problem is that Senator Durbin wants to know if Judge Roberts will uphold the law...even if it is not in moral agreement with his personal beliefs?

Judge John Roberts is nominated to the highest court in the United States and somebody wants to know that he can separate the law from his own views? This is unreasonable?

Why don't we all take our own litmus test to find out? Here are several questions-

Question #1
Do you agree with somebody burning the flag of the United States? If not, do you agree that currently that right is protected as a freedom of speech? If you agree that the right to burn the flag is currently protected, do you agree that there is nothing you can do about that action...no matter your personal feelings?

Question #2
Do you agree that ALL peaceful religions are protected by the Constitution of the United States? Do you agree that the definition of religion has purposely been left vague? If so, then if a person wishes to practice Wiccan (pagan religion) and teach Wicca to their children, they have as much right as anyone to do this?

Question #3
Do you agree with homosexuality? If not, do you agree that it is against the law to discriminate against somebody because of sexual preference? Do you agree that intimidation tactics against homosexuals is wrong? (Mixed a legal and moral question there...)

***Warning. The next question will be tough for some people. I did not come up with this question. It was on a morals test I took.

Question#4
A man who leads a completely ordinary and socially productive life, has a fetish. Once in a while, he enjoys going to the grocery store to buy a raw chicken. He then takes the raw chicken home and has sex with it. After having sex with the raw chicken, he cooks the chicken and eats it for dinner. The man never shares his chicken with anyone else and no one is effected by his activities. Since no animal or human is harmed by this fetish, is it illegal? If you agree that it is not illegal, is it immoral? Or, is it neither illegal nor immoral, but just 'gross'? Most importantly, can you recognize the difference?

Now, I do not think it would be appropriate to ask a Supreme Court nominee the last question...however entertaining it might be to hear an answer. I am merely showing examples of separating the law and personal beliefs.

As we all know, removing yourself from your religious beliefs is the toughest of all.

Now to get back to the problem as Tony Perkins sees it. Here is what Senator Durbin asked John Roberts-

"...what would you do if the law required a ruling that your church considers immoral?"

Maybe it's just me, but I do not think that question is out of line. I do not think it is a 'religious litmus test' either. If John Roberts was a Muslim, would this question be considered wrong? If he was a Hindu? Pagan? Scientologist? (GASP) Atheist?

Who is really giving the 'religious litmus test' here? Who is speaking out of both sides of their mouth? Let's take a look-

'Justice Sunday- Stopping the Filibuster Against People of Faith.'

'Justice Sunday II- God save the United States and this Honorable Court.'

I think we can all recognize who has already given a test here. Obviously, the Family Research Council is happy with the answers and the rest of us should be too.

Tony Perkins went on to say this-

"Once again, I call Senator Durbin's colleagues to immediately pledge that they will not oppose judicial nominees on the basis of their religious views."

Absolutely. That sounds completely reasonable...until you put it in context with something Mr. Perkins said in a letter describing Justice Sunday I-

"As the liberal, anti-Christian dogma of the left has been repudiated in almost every recent election, the courts have become the last great bastion for liberalism." (Side note- Seven of the Nine Supreme Court Justices currently serving were appointed by Republicans.)

So, religion does not play a role in judicial nominees? Or, maybe as long as the nominee agrees with your religion Mr. Perkins, then it should not play a role...

Let's follow up with this-

"The Supreme Court has become increasingly hostile to Christianity, and it poses a greater threat to representative government- more than anything, more than budget deficits, more than terrorist groups."

I believe I am beginning to see a pattern here. One final quote from Mr. Perkins before we switch gears-

"...the Constitution forbids the disqualification of judicial nominees on the basis of religious and moral convictions."

Yes it does. The Constitution forbids disqualification of ALL nominees, not just judicial, for those reasons. Keep in mind- religious and moral convictions...

Moral Convictions.

July 27th- Perkins disparaged the Democrats' requests for documents on John Roberts, calling it a 'fishing expedition'.

August 4th- Records are released on Romer v. Evans, in which John Roberts provided pro bono assistance to gay-rights activists.

August 5th- Perkins assures supporters that he intends to verify that Roberts is a conservative. "Trust , but verify. We plan to do just that as we will be heavily involved in the confirmation hearings."

Hmmm....I think that Mr. Perkins may not be as pleased with Judge Roberts previous activities as he once thought. Isn't it interesting how that whole 'moral convictions' line is harder to swallow when you're on the other side?

What would happen if we looked a bit further into the Family Research Councils' past? Would we find more discrepancies?

You bet we would. I will cover the Family Research Council's flip-flop on filibusters and 'moral convictions' in a separate post. To put all the information in one post would be more like reading a term paper than a blog.

As a final note- I have nothing against Judge Roberts. I believe he will be nominated. My issue is with the double-standards presented by this, so-called, Christian organization.

Oh Colorado, don't tease me this way.

2005-08-18T18:02:00.000-06:00

You can see all state results at SurveyUSA.

No more 'Axis of Evil'

2005-08-17T15:04:00.000-06:00

Due to a recent Washington Post article covering Bush Administration setbacks regarding the 'Axis of Evil', Wonkette thinks it may be time for a renaming.

For example, the Bush Administration renamed the 'Global War On Terror' to the 'Global Struggle against Violent Extremism'.

Well, at least temporarily renamed it...

Now Wonkette has a new title for the 'Axis of Evil'. The...

'Surprisingly Sturdy Band of Freedom-Hating, Nukes-Deploying Advocates of Violent Extremism'

It may be long, but I think it's kind of snappy.

I wish Denver would do this...

2005-08-16T15:13:00.000-06:00

Atlanta Council approves panhandling ban

This is so un-PC of me to admit, but I am sick and tired of people walking up to me and asking for money or waving some cardboard sign in my face at an intersection. Recently I watched a guy hit up people in a Wendy's drive-thru for their change. This stuff has gotten out of hand.

My favorite is the multiple attempts such as-

"Do you have any change? No. Do you have a cigarrette? No. Then can I have a ride? NO!"

Which part of NO do you not understand?

I am sure that I have offended my more liberal readers with this, but I would be lying to say I am sorry. I'm not.

New Blog Feature!!!

2005-08-16T11:48:00.000-06:00

Introducing a NEW feature here at 'Another Unknowledgeable Hack'-
People Who Really Scare Me

As I feel like it, I will introduce you to the people on this list...in their own words. For example-

My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building.

It would be a much better country if women did not vote. That is simply a fact.

Liberals hate America, they hate flag waivers, they hate abortion opponents, they hate all religion except Islam, post 9/11. Even Islamic terrorists don't hate America like liberals do. They don't have the energy. If they had that much energy, they'd have indoor plumbing by now.

Sweaters are the anti-Biblical view. Big gas-guzzling cars with phones and CD players and wet bars- that's the Biblical view.

Introducing the one...the only...Ann Coulter!!!

Really there was only one option for the honor to be first on my list. With statements like these how could Ms. Coulter not endear herself to the masses?

"I don't see you! You're not there!"

2005-08-15T13:42:00.000-06:00

Mad King George defended the fact that he was wearing no clothes to reporters on Sunday, saying; "You just can't see my clothes because I'm special and you're not!" as he and his lovely wife enjoyed some quality vacation time.

OK...not really.

However, when asked why he felt it unnecessary to meet with Cindy Sheehan and instead go bike riding, he did say it's "important for me to go on with my life."

Oh Georgie. This is why it is best if you don't speak without cue cards.

I understand that you cannot set a precedent of meeting with anybody who asks, but why do you say things like this when the grieving Mom of a Gold Star decorated soldier is camped out in your backyard?

Now you look like you don't care...even more than you looked like you didn't care before.

Hardline U.S. Cabinet takes Aim at Hardline Iranian Cabinet

2005-08-15T11:22:00.000-06:00

Uh oh.

On Saturday President Bush told Iran to stop playing with fire or they might get burned. Actually, he said this-

"The use of force is the last option for any president. You know, we've used force in the recent past to secure our country."

Once again, the most powerful individual in the world showed that his mastery of the English language is lacking... I think he may have been trying to not-so-subtlety remind the Iranians that the use of force is the last option for other presidents, not so much for him.

Iran's new president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (try saying that three times in a row) responded with a quick "kiss my ass" and a new hardline cabinet. Not one of the 21 new cabinet members favors any democratic reforms in Iran.

As a side story- Pakistan is against the use of force to make Iran comply with U.S. demands. I don't think this is about 'protecting' another Islamic country as it is that Pakistan is getting tired of so much fighting on it's borders. What? You don't want more terrorists setting up shop in your mountains?

The IAEA is to release a report that there is no evidence that Iran is manufacturing U-238, the needed uranium for a nuclear bomb. Iran has repeatedly said it is only producing U-235, which is used to generate electricity.

I do not want to see an extremist Islamic country with a nuclear weapon anymore than the next guy. However, I do not trust this administration to 'get the facts right' before deciding that if Iran wants nuclear weapons we will give them some.

I have a horrible feeling in my stomach that we are going to 'enjoy' the first presidency with not one, not two, but three separate wars. And possibly the first military use of a nuclear weapon in 60 years.

I worry that 'The Bomb' is the only toy Bush hasn't got to play with yet....

Bush Administration cancels 'Surreal Life Iraq'

2005-08-14T01:07:00.000-06:00

White House shedding 'unreality' of pre-war goals, official says...

Goals being deleted from Iraq expectations-

* Model New Democracy
* Self-supporting oil industry
* A society where the majority are free from serious security or economic challenges

"What we expected to achieve was never realistic given the timetable or what unfolded on the ground. We are in the process of absorbing factors of the situation we're in and shedding the unreality that dominated at the beginning." -Senior White House Official

What is reality-

* Many in Baghdad go days without electricity...in 120 degree heat
* Kidnapping is rampant.
* Barbers will not shave men from fear of being killed by religious extremists
* Unemployment is at 50 to 65 percent
* Killings of the Iraqi Security force have tripled since January

"We set out to establish a democracy, but we're slowly realizing we will have some form of Islamic Republic." -White House Official

U.S. convoys from Kuwait, Jordon and Turkey are attacked on average 30 times a week. In fact, insurgent attacks have doubled over the past year, according to Army Brig. General Yves Fontaine.

"We've said we won't leave a day before it's necessary. But necessary is the key word- necessary for them or us? When we finally depart, it will probably be for us." -U.S. Official

Isn't it ironic how the exact same position of many who are against the Iraq war is now the position of the Bush Administration?

Isn't it ironic that after so many have said our expectations were unrealistic, they are being proven correct?

Isn't it ironic that after learning that there was 'no immediate threat', that there were no weapons of mass destruction and that we would not be welcomed with rice and rosewater, we have decided that maybe we need to leave?

Isn't it ironic that when things don't go our way, this Administration would rather leave a country we destroyed to it's own means than finish the job?!

Michelle Malkin -Clean it up people!

2005-08-11T14:11:00.000-06:00

Rarely do I find myself agreeing with Ms. Malkin. I won't go into the reasons here...if you've read my blog you already know why.

However, after writing about hillbilly Jimbo this morning, I ran across this-

X-Originating-IP: [206.190.38.172]
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 03:54:29 -0700 (PDT)
From: dan opacki danopacki@yahoo.com
Subject: oriental dolls
To: malkin@comcast.net

Didn't you pose for Oriental Dolls magazine a couple of years ago? You look just like one of those little fuck sluts with her wide open legs and sloppy cunt - Oh no excuse me, that's your face.

Sincerely,
Dan

********************************************************************
X-Originating-IP: [68.142.206.95]
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 13:42:24 -0700 (PDT)
From: William us96143@yahoo.com
Subject: TIP
To: malkin@comcast.net

Here's a tip for you, I hope your entire family perishes in a war of your liking. Fucking cunt.

*********************************************************************
X-Originating-IP: [216.105.154.202]
From: "Mitchell, Patrick" Patrick.Mitchell@ogletreedeakins.com
To: "'malkin@comcast.net'"
Subject:
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 11:41:22 -0400
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72)

YOU STINK you nasty CUNT! Eat Shit and DIE bitch!!

**********************************************************************

All this over the Cindy Sheehan flap....

Didn't anybody get my memo?! We 'libbies' cannot berate the 'fundies' for their poor manners and judgment if we are doing the same thing!!! (BTW- I'm tired of moonbat and chickenhawk. It is now libbie and fundie.)

On a more serious note- Ms. Malkin's stock went up a point with me. I think it is great that she posted these e-mails on her site unedited. These people deserve all the nasty replies that they get.

On behalf of 'libbies' everywhere I would like to apologize to Ms. Malkin. I would also like to let Ms. Malkin know that we will find these poor wayward souls counseling, and try to figure out what we did wrong.

We will also get these individuals a thesaurus. Obviously they need to expand their vocabulary.

***Just to be clear, I do not agree with Ms. Malkin in any manner on the Cindy Sheehan story. I think that both she and Bill O'Reilly were baised and unfair in their comments on The Factor. However, that does not justify the kind of comments seen above.

If you want to upset Ms. Malkin, or O'Reilly for that matter, hit them with the facts- not nasty words.

Jimmy W. Hall- You're Disgraceful.

2005-08-11T10:14:00.000-06:00

I don't honestly believe that there is a 'liberal' bias in the media, just as I don't believe there is a 'conservative' one either. If all you read or watch is Democracy Now! or Daily Kos then of course you see liberal. If all you read or watch is Scarborough Country or The Drudge Report, then you will see conservative bias.

Over all, I think that it balances itself out. I think you must remember that the same media which is 'liberal' now had a field day with Clinton's presidency. Controversy makes for 'good' news, simple as that.

That being said, I now want to talk about this article-

'Dead soldier's mom aids foe with protest'

Jimmy W. Hall is the worst kind of writer/journalist in my opinion. Writing a Guest Column on ajc.com, he has the nerve to pass judgment on a woman he has never met or even spoken to.

If you are paying attention, now is when you should be saying to yourself, "Well aren't you about to pass judgment on someone you've never met?" Yes I am. However, I am nothing but another unknowledgeable hack, where as this individual is a writer...totally different, don't you see? We shall now move beyond the irony...

You may not agree with Cindy Sheehan's actions (I hope you are following the news enough to know what I am talking about), but I would hope you could understand that she is a parent who has suffered a terrible loss. Ms. Sheehan is acting in the way she feels is most productive to the point she is trying to make.

Are you with me so far?

So, 'Jimbo' W. Hall does not agree with her actions. Fair enough, he has every right to make his views known. Jimbo is also in the lucky position to make his views known to a larger percentage of the population than most of us.

Why then Jimbo, would you feel it was productive to write things like this?

'Cindy Sheehan evidently thinks little of her deceased son, his sacrifice or of those left to do the noble work in his absence.'

'The insurgents were Casey's enemy. The President of the United States is his mother's. What is wrong with this picture? Would he be proud of her near-treasonous actions? Hardly.'

'She supports those who killed Casey by wanting to pull out and let them kill more innocent people, unhindered. The lady is on the wrong team. She's disgraceful.'

'She obviously didn't care about the occupation while he was alive; why now? I don't get it.'

Not only has Jimbo obviously not been following this story, but he has put a spin on it that I do not think is there. I have not seen or read anything about the president being 'the enemy'. As to his alluding to Ms. Sheehan not knowing why we are in Iraq- that is a complete fabrication.

Ms. Sheehan wants to ask the president, "What did my son die for?" This is the same question many are asking- we were told one thing, then another...where is the truth?

Mr. Hall, why do you feel that it is OK to slander this poor woman? Do you feel that your readers will enjoy that? Are you really that petty and callous? I'm not writing about how your picture makes me think you are a pedophile and wife beater. That would be wrong, wouldn't it?

I would think that you, as a writer, would understand that civil discourse is the mark of an intelligent individual. Twisting the facts to suit 'your story' is nothing more than name-calling. Are you such a poor writer that this is all you know?

Really Jimbo, it is you who is disgraceful.
*********************************************************************
UPDATE- For the full story about the 'twisting' of the Cindy Sheehan saga, go here.

Favorite Bumper Sticker I've Seen in a While...

2005-08-10T14:39:00.000-06:00

IF GOING TO CHURCH MAKES YOU A CHRISTIAN,
DOES GOING TO THE GARAGE MAKE YOU A CAR?

Press Conference

2005-08-10T12:13:00.000-06:00

"I know she's out there just waiting for me. Well, I tell you what, I'm not gonna do it...nope, not gonna do it. I think she's a threat to my home...I mean Homeland Security. Yep, that's it! She's a threat to Homeland Security!!! I'll have my 'boys' pick her up and send her to Club Gitmo!"

-Referring to Cindy Sheehan, camping out down the road from Bush's Crawford, Texas ranch.

"All ya'll better watch out 'cause I'm on vacation...I mean...I'm working hard down here. It ain't even like a vacation -I'm working. Hard. You know what I mean?"

-On public perception that he doesn't work.

"I don't listen to that 'rock 'n' roll' garbage. It rots young people's minds! It's all about fornicatin', drugs and drinkin'! I don't do that....anymore. I'll ban them from the country too. I'll ban the album! Wal-Mart will help me. Few more tax-breaks, some cheap crap from China...yep, Wal-Mart will help me."

-Response to Rolling Stones song criticizing his policies.

"I'll whoop his skinny little ass! Chavez just got on the list! Right after Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, France...not North Korea...number five on the list buddy! Ooops. I probably shouldn't have said that. Can you forget I said that?"

-Referring to President Chavez's comments about the U.S. invading Venezuela.

*********************************************************************
Could not resist. The picture was too good not to use for something....

Unnecessary War

2005-08-10T11:11:00.000-06:00

PART ONE
A Call to Action. A Call to War.

Here is a stupid question. Do you remember where you were on September 11, 2001? Do you remember how you felt watching (over and over again) those planes slam into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon?

Did you feel sad? Confused? ANGRY?

Did you want to avenge all the innocent people who were killed and maimed in this horrific attack?

I know I did. I wanted nothing more than to kill the terrorists responsible. I wanted to find the haven for these terrorists and turn it into a giant parking lot...and then put a Wal-Mart and Starbucks on top of it for good measure. I was outraged. I wanted to hunt down ALL terrorists and destroy their organizations.

I wanted BLOOD.

...and I wasn't alone. I also remember the public reaction on and immediately after 9/11. Americans were no longer liberal or conservative, democrat or republican, hawk or dove. We were united in our stand against terror.

...and the world was united with us. The last time so many people of different nations and cultures were united for one cause was World War II. A war against tyranny and oppression...a war for freedom.

Our cause, the world's cause, was just.

Do you remember those days? I do.

"Freedom itself was attacked this morning by a faceless coward. Freedom will be defended!" -George Bush, 9/11/2001

"The deliberate and deadly attacks which were carried out yesterday against our country were more than acts of terror. They were acts of war." -George Bush, 9/12/2001

"When I take action, I'm not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt. It's going to be decisive." -George Bush (unknown date)

I was angry, but I was proud. I was proud of this country and how it joined together. I was proud of our President and how he was strong, resolved and determined. We were at a watershed moment in history. We could lead the world in change, stomping out terror for all people.

That never happened......
______________________________________________________________

INTERMISSION
Losing Focus

State of the Union address. First mention of 'Axis of Evil' (Iraq, Iran, North Korea) -1/29/2002

"I don't know where Osama bin Laden is. I'll repeat what I said: I am truly not that concerned about him." -George Bush, 3/13/2002 (6 months after 9/11)
______________________________________________________________

PART TWO
Misplaced Trust and False Claims

"After all, this (Saddam Hussein) is a guy who tried to kill my dad at one time." -George Bush, 9/26/2002 (1 year after 9/11)

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." -Dick Cheney, 8/26/2002

"We have first-hand descriptions of biological weapons factories on wheels and on rails." -Colin Powell, 2/5/2003

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." -George Bush, 3/17/2003

"It's going to take time to find them, but we know he had them." -George Bush, 4/24/2003

"I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it now." -Colin Powell, 5/4/2003

"I am absolutely convinced with time we'll find out that they did have a weapons program." -George Bush, 6/9/2003

"We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th." -George Bush, 9/17/2003 (2 years after 9/11)

"We have not yet found stocks of weapons... We have not yet been able to corroborate the existence of a mobile BW production effort... ...to date we have not uncovered evidence that Iraq undertook significant post-1998 steps to actually build nuclear weapons or produce fissile material." -David Kay, 10/2/2003

"What we now know as a result of David Kay's efforts confirms that Saddam Hussein had every intention of continuing his work on banned weapons..." -Colin Powell, 10/7/2003

"Let there be no mistake, right up until the end, Saddam Hussein continued to harbor ambitions to threaten the world with weapons of mass destruction..." -Condi Rice, 10/8/2003
__________________________________________________________

INTERMISSION
The True Enemy

Al Qaeda terrorist attacks since September 11th, 2001

JULY 7, 2005: Four explosions in the London subway and on a bus during morning rush hour. A group calling itself the Secret Organization of al-Qaeda in Europe claims responsibility.

MARCH 11, 2004: Attack on four commuter trains in Madrid, Spain, killed 191 people and injured more than 1,600. The bombings were blamed on Islamic militants with suspected ties to al-Qaeda.

NOV. 20, 2003: Trucks packed with explosives detonate at a London-based bank and the British consulate in Istanbul, Turkey, killing more than two dozen people and wounding nearly 450.

NOV. 15, 2003: Twin car bombs explode outside two synagogues in Istanbul, Turkey, killing 23 plus the two bombers. Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul said that the two bombers had visited Afghanistan and that investigators were looking for any al-Qaeda links.

AUG. 5, 2003: A suicide bomber kills 12 people and injures 150 at the J.W. Marriott hotel in Jakarta, Indonesia. Authorities blame Jemaah Islamiyah, a Southeast Asian group linked to al-Qaeda.

MAY 16, 2003: Bomb attacks in Morocco kill at least 28 people and wound more than 100. The government blames "international terrorism" and local militant groups linked to al-Qaeda.

MAY 12, 2003: Four explosions rock Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, in an attack on compounds housing Americans, other Westerners and Saudis. The attack kills 35 people, including eight Americans. Al-Qaeda's wing in Saudi Arabia, which now goes by the name al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, claimed responsibility for the attack.

DEC. 30, 2002: A gunman kills three American missionaries at a Southern Baptist hospital in Yemen. Yemeni officials say the gunman, sentenced to death in May, belonged to an al-Qaeda cell.

NOV. 28, 2002: Suicide bombers kill 12 people at an Israeli-owned beach hotel in Kenya, and two missiles narrowly miss a civilian airliner.

OCT. 12, 2002: Nearly 200 people, including seven Americans, are killed in bombings in a nightclub district of the Indonesian island of Bali. Authorities blame militant group Jemaah Islamiyah.

"...I can assure the American people I am determined, I'm not going to be distracted, I will keep my focus to make sure that not only are these brought to justice, but anybody who's been associated will be brought to justice..." -George Bush, 9/15/2001
________________________________________________________

PART THREE
Losing...the War on Terror, our National Resolve, and World Opinion.

If you have read this far I am sure you have come to the realization that I am against the war in Iraq. The question is, do you understand why?

I would hope that you can see that it is not a 'soft' stance on terror. It is not the so-called 'liberal' viewpoint of 'what did we do wrong?' (Which I do not believe exists in the manner it is portrayed by some conservatives.) It is not because I believe that had we not invaded Iraq, terrorists would stop attacking us.

I am against the war in Iraq because I believe it was an unnecessary war. Notice that I said 'was'. Unfortunately it is completely necessary NOW. Iraq is a country on the edge of civil war, overrun with terrorists and completely dependent on the United States.

Currently we have over 120,000 troops occupying Iraq. The war has cost us $186,000,000,000.00. The U.S. military has suffered 1833 fatalities...officially. The actual number is higher. U.S. personnel who die outside of Iraq from actions within Iraq are not counted in this number. The number of wounded U.S. soldiers is over 13,000.

Iraqi civil casualties are between 23,317 and 26,396.

This is our war on terror? Nearly FOUR YEARS after 9/11 and we still have not caught or killed Osama bin Laden? Al Qaeda not only managed a successful attack in London one month ago, but has since released a new tape threatening more? What happened to-

"We will find who did it. We will smoke them out of their holes; we will get them running; and we will bring them to justice." -George Bush, 9/15/2001

The other day I posted that 62% of the American public do not agree with President Bush's handling of the Iraq war. Docjim at 'The Second Opinion' commented that the terrorists must be 'cackling with glee.' I agree, they probably are. The terrorists who pulled off the attacks in Indonesia, Spain and London who are not in Iraq where the majority of our military is.

Now there are reports that if the United States is attacked by terrorists again (which is highly probable), we will retaliate by attacking Iran...whether or not they were involved.

"Free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction." -George Bush (unknown date)

Our 'Coalition of the Willing' has shrunk from 46 nations, with Italy, Poland, Spain, Ukraine, Netherlands, Norway and others pulling their troops out of Iraq. This is not because things are going so well. Reasons for countries pulling out of the coalition include the prisoner abuse scandals, Al Qaeda attacks at home and poor public opinion of the handling of the war in Iraq.

China, a communist country with a horrible human rights record, is more popular than the United States. Why? The Iraq war. World opinion is that the United States is flexing it's 'imperial' muscles.

I am not blind to the atrocities that Saddam Hussein committed on his own people. I am not blind to the fact that the Iraqi regime was aggressive and dangerous. He deserves to be brought to justice by his peers. However, Iraq did not represent an immediate threat to the United States. Operation Southern Watch was ongoing at the time of the Iraq invasion. If we felt that Saddam Hussein was becoming (or even thinking about becoming) a threat, we could have moved quickly.

Current United States Army end strength levels are-

512,400 Active Duty, 350,000 National Guard and 205,000 Army Reserve. Total = 1,067,400. Of this, 148,442 are mobilized in Iraq and Afghanistan, or 13.90%. However, the 'paper' numbers are not quite accurate. The number of 'Active Duty' personnel actually includes some National Guard and Reserve units that are activated.

Currently, 210,252 National Guard and Army Reserve soldiers are mobilized.

This is unsustainable. The U.S. military is strained beyond the ability to continue supplying troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Recruitment goals are not being met, and because of this the Army is being forced to take individuals it would previously have found unacceptable.

If we cannot continue at the current pace in Iraq, then how are we fighting the war on terror elsewhere?

That's an easy one....we're not.

...And that's the war we should be fighting. I am not against the war in Iraq because I am a 'liberal peace activist.' I am against the war in Iraq because we have squandered resources and manpower on a self-made problem. When I heard we were taking the fight to the enemy I did not realize that meant opening a country like Disneyland and hoping they showed up.

I do not believe that I am the only person with this view.

In addition...what is the point of saying, "If you don't support the war, you don't support our troops."? What kind of pseudo-patriotic bullshit is that?! Think.

"We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. When the loyal opposition dies, I think the soul of America dies with it." -Edward R. Murrow (unknown date)

"Men in authority will always think that criticism of their policies is dangerous. They will always equate their policies with patriotism, and find criticism subversive." -Henry Steele Commanger (unknown date)

I do support our troops. People who care about this issue support our troops. Maybe they are pacifists who show their support by wanting the troops to come home. Maybe they are in agreement with current policies and show their support by defending said policies. Maybe they are like myself and feel that if we are at war, we could be doing a better job.

None of these options represent not supporting our troops.

***I am sure this will get the blood pumping in several people. Excellent! Just keep your comments thoughtful.

"It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it." -Joseph Joubert (unknown date)

Pork Barrel Politics

2005-08-10T10:24:00.000-06:00

Bush signs new highway bill

$286.4 Billion - 6,371 pet projects - Alaska gets $941 million for special projects (Alaska?!)

"If we want people working in America, we got to make sure our highways and roads are modern." -George Bush

Actually, I think our roads are pretty modern. Maybe we should think about this-

"If we want people working in America, we need to secure our borders, quit signing bullshit trade agreements like CAFTA and stop giving companies tax breaks for out-sourcing." -Me

Here is something interesting. President Bush wanted the bill to be $30 billion less, yet he signed it anyway. The cost of all the 'pet projects' is $24 billion...hmmmm. I think I see a answer here...

Here are some examples of your tax dollars at work-

$231 million for a bridge near Anchorage, Alaska...to be named after Senator Don Young, who pushed the money through. "Don Young's Way", has a nice ring to it, you know?

$2.3 million for landscaping along the Ronald Reagan Freeway.

$400,000.00 to rehabilitate a warehouse on the Erie canal.

$3 million for dust control on rural Arkansas roads...here's an idea, pave them.

$1 billion to encourage children to walk and bicycle to school. With that kind of money we could just buy them all bicycles... $1 billion!!! To get kids to walk or ride bicycles?! WTF?!

$1 million to renovate a bus station in Jessup, Georgia. Sorry, historic bus station...it's not used anymore.

$2.5 million for improvements to the Blue Ridge Music Center in Galax, Virginia.

$7 million to construct 'Renaissance Square' in Rochester, New York...including a performing arts center.

$1.5 million for improvements to the Henry Ford Museum. Last I knew, Ford was still in business. Can't they cough up some cash for their own damn museum?!

It's good to see all this fiscal conservatism in congress. You know, tightening the belt on special projects, no giving any new tax breaks...looking at ways to cut into THE LARGEST DEFICIT IN U.S. HISTORY!!!

In a time of war, we all need to contribute. I'm glad we can take our lead from government.

Trial Rigging Alleged by Army Prosecutors

2005-08-08T14:20:00.000-06:00

Read the links below to find out more-

1) Transcript from The World Today, an ABC affiliate in Australia.
2) 'Leaked e-mails claim Guantanamo trials rigged' -ABC News Online
3) 'Prosecuters complained about detainee trial plans' -International Herald Tribune
4) 'Two Prosecutors Faulted Trials for Detainees' -New York Times
5) 'Ex-Military Prosecutors Fault Gitmo Trials' -Washington Post

One question- If the allegations were 'monstrous lies', as Col. Borch has claimed, then why was Capt. Carr promoted to Major?

I do not think that the Army gives promotions to Major for telling 'monstrous lies'.

How to make 'SENSATIONAL' news headlines

2005-08-08T09:59:00.000-06:00

This is on CNN's website under U.S. News-

'TODDLER SLAIN IN POLICE SHOOTOUT HAD COCAINE IN SYSTEM'

Now, doesn't that sound like police had a shootout with a toddler on crack? What a way to grab your attention.

If that isn't bad enough, check this out at the end of the article-

'The autopsy report released earlier this week concluded the girl suffered two gunshot wounds by police, including one shot that blew out most of her brain.'

Do we really need to know that?!

Just who is the Man behind the curtain?

2005-08-06T09:59:00.000-06:00

Roberts is Pro-Homosexuality!!!
Roberts is Pro-Abortion!!! No!!! Roberts is Anti Abortion!!!
Roberts is Anti Civil Rights!!!
Roberts is Anti Environment!!!
Roberts is a Closet Liberal!!!
Roberts is Ultra-Conservative!!!
Roberts is a Heartthrob!!!

Roberts is Big Business Lackey!!!

To these I would like to add...

Roberts is a Space Alien!!!
I'm Carrying John Roberts Love Child!!!
Roberts robbed my Grandma!!!
Roberts/Bush Secret Affair- Exposed!!!

I just wanted to add my own attention grabbing tag lines to the ongoing John Roberts media circus. None of these are correct...except the space alien one, of course.

38%...Is that a Mandate?!

2005-08-05T13:05:00.000-06:00

The latest AP poll shows that 38% of Americans agree with Bush, Jr's handling of the war in Iraq.

Yes, it is the war in Iraq...maybe we should say war #3 in Iraq. The war AFTER the war that was concluded in April, 2003.

Let's see. 38%...carry the 1.....divide by 3.14....yep, 62% do NOT agree. Man, that new math is tough.

Bush has pledged, "We will stay the course. We will complete the job in Iraq." Errrr, Right...

The unofficial, non-scientific survey on MSNBC has the numbers closer to this-

15% agree with the president's handling of Iraq.
83% do not agree with the president's handling of Iraq.
2% are not sure.

As I said, not a scientific survey, but interesting none the less.

Home, Home on the Range...

2005-08-04T13:00:00.000-06:00

"I know I should be doing something..."

(...lead fight on global war on terror...)
(...fire Karl Rove...)
(...work towards ending U.S. foreign oil dependency...)
(...keep Cheney away from the nuclear button...)
(...strengthen Homeland Security...)
(...find Osama bin Laden...)
(...work to mend partisian rift in congress...)
(...take classes on acting more 'Presidential'...)

"Oh yeah, I need to clear some brush at my ranch. Time to get to work!"

Since taking office, President Bush has spent 20% -or 319 days- of his presidency at his ranch in Crawford, Texas.

319 DAYS...and he still has 3 1/2 years to go in his 2nd term. What do think the total will be at that time? My guess? 500+.

We are at war, right?

Let's compare Dubya's attendance record with some other Presidents...

George H.W. Bush -One term in office (1460 days), 543 vacation days / 37.19%. (Now we know where he gets it...)
Ronald Reagan- Two terms in office (2920 days), 335 vacation days / 11.47%
Bill Clinton- Two terms in office (2920 days), 152 vacation days / 5.20%
Jimmy Carter- One term in office (1460 days), 79 vacation days / 5.41%

According to Presidential hand puppet Scott McClellan,

"Spending time outside of Washington always gives the president a fresh perspective of what's on the minds of the American people. It's a time, really, for him to shed the coat and tie and meet with folks out in the heartland and hear what's on their minds."

Yeah right. On his 1,300 acre ranch, outside of Crawford, Texas, population 700. I'm sure he gets a lot of 'perspective' there.

I understand that in this day and age you can 'work' nearly anywhere. However, I also understand that, in this day and age, perception is just as important as reality.

I just don't think GWB understands it.

Right-Wing Bloggers least Favorite Right-Wingers'

2005-08-03T15:04:00.000-06:00

Without Further ado-

18) Tom Tancredo (4)
18) Ralph Reed (4)
18) Newt Gingrich (4)
18) Lincoln Chafee (4)
18) James Dobson (4)
18) George Pataki (4)
18) Arnold Schwarzenegger (4)
14) Tom DeLay (5)
14) Rush Limbaugh (5)
14) George Voinovich (5)
14) Chuck Hagel (5)
13) Andrew Sullivan (6)
11) Tucker Carlson (7)
11) Bob Novak (7)
9) Sean Hannity (8)
9) Rick Santorum (8)
8) Arlen Specter (10)
7) Jerry Falwell (15.5)
6) Bill O'Reilly (16)
5) Michael Savage (17)
4) Pat Robertson (19.5)
3) Ann Coulter (20)
2) John McCain (21)
1) Pat Buchanan (28)..

Hey! These are some of my least favorite Right-Wingers'!!!! Imagine that.

You can see who voted here.

President Endorses Teaching 'Creationism'...

2005-08-03T13:24:00.000-06:00

...Follows up with, "I ain't no monkey, ya'll."

President Bush, in his continuing quest to be dubbed 'King for Life and Direct Conduit to God for All', has endorsed teaching 'Intelligent Design' alongside evolution in public schools.

Hey, I'm all for it.

As soon as churches begin teaching evolution along with creationism.

As long as ALL types of 'Intelligent Design' are taught in school. (The Hopi Indians believe the world is on the back of a giant turtle in space...will that be taught?)

As long as 'Intelligent Design' advocates can offer one shred of proof to back up their claims. If 'Intelligent Design' is to be taught as science, it should hold up to scientific scrutiny, correct?

After all, we no longer teach that the world is flat, that the sun revolves around the earth, and that lightning is the thunderbolts of the gods.

If we are to teach Christian Intelligent Design in schools, where do we stop? Do we also teach-

-that Jonah really did live in the belly of a fish for 30 days?
-that Adam & Eve's children really did commit incest to populate the earth?
-that Noah's family committed incest again after God had a temper tantrum?
-that God allowed Job's world to be destroyed because of a wager with Satan?
-that there must have been dinosaurs on the ark?
-that the world really is only 6,000 years old?

Why? Because that is what is taught in the Bible. I would say, "Don't get me started." But it's too late...I already have....

I am not slamming an individual's belief in 'Creationism' or 'Intelligent Design'. I don't agree, but that isn't the issue. The issue is dressing up religion as science and teaching it to students who are barely getting a proper education as it is.

I did enjoy this quote-

Rep. Barney Frank said this in noting Bush's Ivy League education, "People might cite George Bush as proof that you can be totally impervious to the effects of Harvard and Yale education."

Ouch.

Wag the Dog

2005-08-01T13:53:00.000-06:00

(Hat-tip: Pell-Mell)

According to 'The American Conservative', it seems that the Pentagon is working up plans to go to war against Iran.

Now, we all know that part of the Pentagon's job is to have war 'op-plans' for any contingency. In fact, I'm sure that there is even plans to invade Canada or Britain somewhere in the basement. It's not that we would do that, it's just part of the job to have them.

That is not the part that is interesting...this is-

1. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and nuclear weapons.

2. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in an act of terrorism directed against the United States.

According to the article, several senior Air Force officers are appalled with the plan. They feel that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack. However, none are prepared to damage their career by posing any objections.

This article is terrifying in it's implications. However, I wonder a bit about the vagueness of the information provided. I would also hope that a 'Senior Air Force officer' who felt that an unprovoked nuclear attack was being planned against a sovereign country would come forward with that information.

As you know, I do not put anything past this monarchy -I mean Administration- so I won't discount this automatically. To 'nuke' Iran would surely solve most of Dubya's problems- slow economy, high oil prices, overextended military, low public support and Islamic extremism against the United States.

Yep, it would definitely solve all those problems....

The Rat Patrol...Leapin' Jeeps!!!

2005-07-30T20:30:00.000-06:00

Does anyone else remember this T.V. series?

When I was a kid, this show had already been in reruns for 10 years, but I loved it. Especially the opening of the show when the jeeps would jump over the sand dunes with guns blazing... If I remember correctly, they were being chased by German halftracks...

The golden age of television, when the good guys were always handsome, the bad guys really weren't that bad, and even an injury would only be a 'flesh wound'. You would hear the characters say things like-

"It's OK Sarge, I'll be fit in a week, and then we'll really get those Jerries!"

I have to admit, if I saw this show on today, I would watch it. I must be getting old- pining for my misspent youth...

Anyway, I've seen a lot of talk about 'Over There' and it made me think about it.

Thought for the Day

2005-07-30T00:38:00.000-06:00

There are three sides to every story.
Yours,
Mine,
the Truth.

Something for all of us to keep in mind.

"It's not just a matter of Faith..."

2005-07-29T15:17:00.000-06:00

..."it's a matter of Science." -Senator Bill Frist, 7/29/2005

Senator Frist has broken with the Bush Administration and the more conservative elements of the Republican Party to support expanded federal financing for embryonic stem-cell research.

President Bush, while reportedly telling Sen. Frist, "You've got to vote your conscience.", has made it clear that he will veto any legislation that would liberalize federal support for stem-cell research.

Personally, I do not have a high opinion of Senator Frist, nor his medical knowledge. This is the same person that stated HIV/AIDS may be transmittable through sweat and tears, and made the outstandingly accurate diagnosis of Terri Schiavo after viewing an edited videotape.

He stated that he had never made a diagnosis on national television after the autopsy was released...but that's a whole different story...

So, here I am. In the position of agreeing with Senator Bill Frist...I keep looking out the window to see if any pigs are flying by. (Nope, none yet.)

What gives me pause in this developing story is this. Has Bill Frist thrown any chance he had at the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination away? Check out these quotes-

"Senator Frist cannot have it both ways. He cannot be pro-life and pro-embryonic stem cell funding. Nor can he turn around and expect widespread endorsement from the pro-life community if he should decide to run for president in 2008." -Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, director of the Christian Defense Coalition

(Translated: We own you...)

"Senator Frist is a good man, he's simply advocating bad policy." -Tom Delay

(Translated: Dude, don't you know which side your bread is buttered on?!)

"The media have already begun speculating that Sen. Frist's announcement today is designed to improve his chances of winning the White House in 2008. If that is the case, he has gravely miscalculated. To push for the expansion of this suspect and unethical science will be rightly seen by America's values voters as the worst kind of betrayal- choosing politics over principle." -Dr. James Dobson, Focus on the Family

(Translated: Yes, we DO own you...and don't you forget it.)

"It certainly gives one pause in trusting his commitment to the sanctity of human life." -Lanier Swan, director of government relations, Concerned Women for America

(Translated: We at CWA are always pissed about something...we are frigid and bitter.)

"Senator Frist can no longer count on our support nor the support of the wider Evangelical or Catholic communities." -Rev. Rob Schenck, President, National Clergy Council

(Translated: We are along for the ride. Dobson tells us what to say.)

While I would probably go out of my way to irritate any of one of the above people were I to meet them, Sen. Frist seems to have been summarily executed by his peers.

Why would he do this? I have little faith that he had a true 'change of heart', yet this must be the case. Sen. Frist was at the front of the line to crucify Sen. McCain. He, of all people, had to know what the repercussions would be.

This will become more interesting as time goes on...

Liberal vs. Conservative

2005-07-28T15:11:00.000-06:00

I would like to make a request-

I am having trouble finding good definitions for both Liberal and Conservative. I would like anyone who feels they have a good definition of one or both of these terms to please type them into my comments.

If you know where I could find good definitions please feel free to leave the link as well.

The definitions I can find do not pertain to the current use of either word, nor the chasm that has occurred between these two ideologies.

Please pass this on to others that you feel may want to add their input as well.

Thanks,
Eric

Part Two- Comments from 'The Second Opinion'

2005-07-28T13:40:00.000-06:00

***This is outstanding!!! Why? Because two people who have never met, with differing social and political viewpoints, have found common ground to stand on- merely by openly discussing and debating the issues.

You will notice that we still do not completely agree. I cannot speak for Jim, but I will say that I am surprised at how close our views are on the main issues.

Once again, my previous replies are in blue, while Jim's are in red.

I have not added any new comments to this- I did not find anything that I needed to comment on. However, I do need to make one clarification-

When I listed the abuses that have occured in which the photos and video were suppressed, I did not mean to insinuate that those actions were condoned by senior military officials. I have the utmost respect for our military. If I offended anyone, I apologize.

Thank you for your kind words and the thoughtful replies to my questions. My responses follow:

CH - If the White House is sending Cheney to meet with them, then the White House realizes this may just be the tip of the iceberg.

DJ - Or, they're trying to prevent those fools from stirring an already bubbling pot and further reinforcing the perception around the world that our guys at Gitmo are routinely torturing innocent detainees.

CH - Included in the photos and videos that are unreleased-
1. American soldiers beating a prisoner almost to death.
2. American soldiers raping a female prisoner.
3. American soldiers acting inappropriately with a dead body.
4. Iraqi guards raping young boys.

DJ - Murder and rape are crimes under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (specifically, articles 118 and 120). In both cases, a court martial is empowered to apply the death penalty. I believe that this SHOULD be applied to any member of the US military who besmirches the honor of American arms by committing such unlawful acts.

If it is found that a senior NCO, officer, or civilian official had knowlege of these offenses and covered them up, he should also be punished to the absolute fullest extent of the law.

To my knowlege, however, there has been no evidence that the events at Abu Ghraib were ordered / sanctioned by anybody in a position of authority.

CH - I cannot accept this argument [that unlawful combatants are not protected under international treaty], and I do not believe the majority of the American public and certainly not the world, accept it either.

DJ - According to FM 27-10, Chapter 3, section II, paragraph 82:

"Persons in the foregoing categories [i.e. spies, persons who give aid and comfort to the enemy, individuals not of armed forces who engage in hostilities, and individuals not of armed forces who commit hostile acts] who have attempted, committed, or conspired to commit hostile or belligerent acts are subject to the extreme penalty of death because of the danger inherent in their conduct. Lesser penalties may, however, be imposed."
http://faculty.ed.umuc.edu/~nsta...nton/ Ch3.htm#s2

The prisoners at Gitmo have all been given hearings by competent military tribunals. We are therefore within our rights to do pretty much whatever we please to them, up to and including execution. We certainly aren't required to give them ethnically correct food and Korans.

That being said, I agree with you that Americans have traditionally behaved to a very high standard, and we ought to uphold that standard. This, I think, has been done to a very large extent.

CH - I do not feel that detaining individuals who have taken up arms against the United States is the issue. Trying to sidestep domestic and international law by keeping them on ships in international waters or on territory that is not sovereign to the United States, is.

docjim505 | Homepage | 07.25.05 - 9:31 pm | #

DJ - To a great extent, I agree. I think the problem lies in the fact that neither US nor international law quite deals with our current situation. Are the terrorists our guys capture in the field military POWs? Are they war criminals? Should they be handed over to US criminal courts or to the criminal justice system of another country?

In a perfect world, these questions would either already be answered, or the appropriate authorities would be developing the necessary laws. Unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world, and part of that imperfect world are liberal judges who would be only too happy to order these thugs released because the soldier or Marine who captured them failed to read their Miranda rights.

The only way to keep this from happening is to keep the prisoners out of the jurisdiction of crazy US judges until we decide what we are ultimately going to do with them. I'd rather it be done otherwise, but what can ya do...

CH - I think this [use of deadly force without warning against a terrorist suspect] falls under 'preemptive strike', which I am not against. Just make sure we kill the right guys...the term 'suspected' bothers me.

DJ - Me, too. The question is, are we willing to risk the police shooting innocent civilians in the hopes that they also shoot suicide bombers before they can explode their bombs?

CH - No [to harsh interrogation measures including torture]. Not because I am some 'namby-pamby' liberal, because we are the 'Arsenal of Democracy'- We are better than that.

DJ - I tend to agree, not only because torture is anathema to what our country stands for, but also because it's not especially effective (the prisoner may say ANYTHING to get the pain to stop). However, consider this scenario:

A terrorist group has gained access to a WMD and threatens to detonate it in Manhattan. If it explodes, it will kill not less than 100,000 people. You have a suspect in custody. You are CERTAIN that he is associated with the plot and knows where the Bomb is. The clock is ticking. What do you do?

CH - Interesting [detaining / threatening to harm family members of terrorists]. My first response was 'No', however, the idea does have merit. It is a very dangerous line to walk though. I think I would agree with incarceration of terrorist families. I believe it would achieve the same effect in a much more humane manner.

DJ - Agreed. I'm not too keen on taking a blowtorch to a six year-old kid to try to get his father to cooperate.

CH - Dangerous ground. I am against any suspension of civil liberties.

docjim505 | Homepage | 07.27.05 - 3:52 pm | #

DJ - Agreed, though I note that civil liberties HAVE been suspended to some degree, notably at airports.

CH - NO!!! NO!!! NO!!! This thought disgusts me! [detention / deportation based on ethnic / racial profiling].

DJ - Agreed.

CH - To use a nuclear weapon in a preemptive strike?! Never.

DJ - Consider these scenarios:

1. A terrorist group or hostile power threatens a missile launch against the United States. US aircraft cannot get to the launch site in time, but a Minuteman or Trident missile can. The clock is ticking. What do you do?

2. A hostile power has agreed to provide a terrorist group with WMD, which are stored in a large weapons complex. It is too large to be destroyed with conventional bombing or a commando attack. Only a nuclear weapon (probably with a burrowing warhead) will destroy the weapons before they can be transferred. The clock is ticking. What do you do?

CH - I honestly have no problem with assassinating terrorists. Sympathizers and suspected terrorists? No.

DJ - In general, I agree, but what standard of evidence is required to issue such an order?

CH - No [use of deadly force, including minefields, to secure US borders]. I can just see the news now- "14 people blown into Texas...and Mexico...and the Gulf..." An international relations nightmare.

DJ - Another scenario: a terrorist group smuggles a WMD through our current, pathetic border security and kills 100,000 people in El Paso or Detroit. Do you still feel the same way?

CH - Military retaliation, to me, means that they did something first. If that is the case, then we would be defending our country. Where would nuclear weapons fit into that equation?

DJ - Balance of terror. The Ayatollah Assahollah might think twice about cooperating with a terrorist group if he thought that it might mean Tehran being turned into a glass parking lot.

These are hard questions, and the answers can be frightening. I'm not interested in raining death and destruction down on innocent (or even not so innocent) people in order to get a few terrorists. BUT, if the terrorists get their hands on nukes or other WMD, we may have to go to extreme lengths to get them before they get us.
docjim505 | Homepage | 07.27.05 - 3:54 pm | #

Tom Delay. Man of Principle...Man of the People.

2005-07-28T11:42:00.000-06:00

For the .pdf version of this letter, go here.

Hat-tip to Scrutiny Hooligans.

I have grown tired of people ripping on a Republican because he/she is a Republican, and a Democrat for being a Democrat.

Same holds true for Liberal vs. Conservative. If we, as adults, cannot find a stronger ground for our arguments then we deserve whatever we get. That being said, let's take a look at the latest exploits of Tom Delay, who, by anybody's count is a thief and a liar.

It seems that somebody, I'm not pointing a finger here, added a clause into the Energy Bill which gives $1.5 billion dollars to oil companies in Tom Delay's district.

I would think this odd in itself, since the oil industry is awash in record levels of cash. However, what makes this tiny revelation all the more interesting is that the text was added to the Energy Bill after the proceedings were gaveled to a close.

I believe this paragraph in the letter from Rep. Henry Waxman to House Speaker Dennis Hastert sums the issue up nicely-

'In short, the subtitle provides that taxpayers will hire a private consortium controlled by the oil and gas industry to hand out over $1 billion to oil and gas companies. There is no conceivable rationale for this extraordinary largesse. The oil and gas industry is reporting record income and profits. According to one analyst, the net income of the top companies will total $230 billion in 2005. If Congress has an extra $1.5 billion to give away, the money should be used to help families struggling to pay for soaring gasoline prices- not to further enrich oil and gas companies that are rolling in profits.'

This is exactly the type of corruption we all need to stand against. I do not believe this is a Republican scam. I think it just further proof that Tom Delay is a crook.

BTW- I once wrote Mr. Delay to ask him to resign his position. I explained to him that his talents would be better utilized in the private sector. Amazingly, I never have received a reply.

Call off 'Entertainment Tonight', it's all good now.

2005-07-28T11:02:00.000-06:00

Moby Has Newfound Respect for Eminem

Moby has decided that he isn't mad at Eminem for making fun of him...and calling him a girl...anymore. Why? Because Eminem criticized President Bush and the war in Iraq on his last album.

How many layers of "I don't give a crap" are in this post? Hmmm...a lot.

I do know that I can now take off of my 'Things to Accomplish in My Life' list-
#43 Work to get Moby and Eminem to be friends again. Just like when we were kids.

Eminem did have this exclusive comment-

"Whatever. He's still a girl."

'GAYSROK' 'GAYRYTS'

2005-07-28T10:41:00.000-06:00

An administrative law judge with the Utah State Tax Commission has ruled that the state has no good reason to prevent Elizabeth Solomon from having license plates that say 'GAYSROK' or 'GAYRYTS'.

Guess what? Elizabeth Solomon isn't even gay. She is showing support for her daughter and two friends who are.

Whether you agree with her views or not, you have to admit that is a pretty cool mom...

I am trying to think of some catchy Mormon license plates...but I am drawing a blank.

Maybe something like-

'LDSROKS' (sounds like some sort of mental disorder...)
'PLYGMY!' (that would be fun to apply for...)
'WWJSD?' (What would Joseph Smith Do?)
'ILVBYU!' (I love Brigham Young University)

You see? I can't really think of anything 'snappy'.

2005-07-27T11:09:00.000-06:00

BUSH: "It doesn't make sense to have a timetable. You know, if you give a timetable, you're- you're conceding too much to the enemy." (GWB, 6/24/2005)

RUMSFIELD: "Ummm...Mr. President?"

BUSH: "That being said, we will probably start pulling out next spring."

Rumsfield: U.S. desires 'fast pace' Iraq pullout

On Strike....

2005-07-26T20:44:00.000-06:00

I need to join a union. Not the UAW or the Air Traffic Controllers, but the "I'm tired of picking up your crap" union.

You see, my girlfriend, whom I live in sin with, does not pick up anything. Let me say that again, ANYTHING. In the amazing way that 21st century relationships are twisted, I- cook, do the laundry, go to the grocery store, feed the dog, do the dishes and clean the house. For some unknown, surely spiritual reason, she cannot even close a drawer or cupboard she opens. Thus, you must learn to watch your head when walking into the kitchen or bathroom...believe me, you learn this quickly.

Now, before I delve too deeply into my upcoming, boiling over, well-deserved rant I will make two things clear-

1. I love her very much, and-
2. Yes I have talked to her about this many times. Her answer? "Well, I go get you cigarettes." I am now the official 'cigarette-getter person' because I am swapping jobs.

Let me see...where to begin.... Ah, the living room. Currently in the living room there are around one dozen empty beer bottles, two empty bottles of wine, one overflowing ashtray, two of our neighbors' chairs, one pair of shoes (women's), three empty packs of cigarettes and several assorted dirty glasses...all from last night. Yes, that is the kind of damage she can do in one night! In addition, there are three tool boxes, a box of camping supplies and around 100 CDs in random places from Saturday night, when she felt a sudden, overwhelming urge to revisit her music collection that I 'hid' from her (her words, not mine), and then listened to none of them.

There is also one dirty bowl and a plate I left in there to show my new rebellious streak. Viva la France!!!!

What?! You don't believe me? We shall now move on to the kitchen-

Currently in the kitchen is a new piece of modern art. I think that it must be modern art because I cannot, for the life of me, figure out why the step ladder must stay in the middle of the kitchen floor. It must be making a statement on the plight of man, not just keeping me from being able to traverse from the office to the living room effectively...

My question is- The step ladder is in her way as much as mine, how does this not bother her?!

I don't know, but it must be art because I keep putting it away- and she keeps putting it back.

We shall now continue with the kitchen. We are not out of clean dishes...yet. But we are damn close. I am pretty sure that unless you need a butter knife you will not find a clean utensil though. What will you find? Besides a lot of dirty dishes, you will find- one jar of capers (on the counter), one bag of opened potato chips (yes, on the counter), the dozen beer caps to go with the bottles in the living room, assorted kitchen tools (can openers, etc.) strewn about, and a box of rocks for her houseplants on the floor. Remaining counter space? Nada.

BTW- I have left the toaster on the counter in my continuing rebellion against the oppressors! Send money and guns!

I think that you should be understanding my plight by this time and arranging my escape if not at least an airdrop of super-secret cleaning SEALs. If not...well lets' cover some more-

Random articles of clothing on the floor. No, that's not right...random articles of clothing strewn about the floor. That's better.

Black skirt on the floor in the hallway? Check.
Makeup box open on the floor of the office? Check.
Clothes hamper of clean clothes in the office for last four days? Check. ( I wanted to see if she would notice. Instead she just tried to put dirty clothes on top of them. Ironically, more dirty clothes from the hallway.)

Bonus round- Perfect place for your bath towel after you take a shower? You guessed it. Floor. Check.

Here is the real kicker to the clothes situation. She gets mad if I do not wash an article correctly. Evidently I am ruining her clothes. My reply to this? "Maybe piling them on the floor and walking on them is ruining them too. Have you ever thought about that?"

Well, I guess she has, and I am wrong.

...I am not going to even go into the grape she gave the dog, he didn't eat, and is now crushed into the hardwood floor...I am not even going into that....

I could go on about the current situation, but unfortunately I must go make signs and come up with a catchy slogan for my picketing.

Oh, and I must go get cigarettes...for that is my new job.

Wish me luck!

2005-07-25T15:40:00.000-06:00

"I should bite your nose off for what you have been doing to my country, you little... Come closer and I'll show you what I do with ChickenHawks."

Comments from 'The Second Opinion'

2005-07-25T10:04:00.000-06:00

OK, I have never done this before and I want to give a quick background before I get into the real purpose of this post-

First, I have copied a comment left on my blog in response to the post 'Incipient Rebellion!!! If only...'. This is NOT to show some dissenting opinion and then try to tear it apart. I have done this because A) I have found this individual to be well-thought and well-spoken, and B) I wanted to share this exchange in more than just the comments section.

Second, I originally posted 'Incipient Rebellion!!! If only...' in a somewhat snarky manner. I thought it was interesting enough to throw a quick jab at the current Administration. However, as you will see in the comment, and as I should have realized myself, this is a serious issue with serious implications.

Finally, I have nothing but respect for the commenter. I enjoy reading his blog, The Second Opinion, and while we agree probably 50% of the time, the exchanges are always friendly. I highly recommend that you check it out. 'Docjim' is happy to debate the issues he posts about- just remember to have your game-face on, he researches his posts and knows what he's talking about.

***Also- Don't hold it against him that he likes Ann Coulter. I mean, hell, He lives in North Carolina...you've got to cut him some slack! (Sorry Jim, couldn't resist)

Original comments are in red, while my replies are in blue...appropriate, no?

A few comments: 1. Having John McCain, John Warner, and Lindsey Graham propose legislation that conflicts with White House desires hardly constitutes rebellion. After all, these three are part of the 'Gang of Fourteen'.

***While I understand that McCain, Warner and Graham are looked at as traitors to their party for crossing partisan lines to reach a compromise over judicial filibusters, I think that-

A) if the White House is sending Cheney to meet with them, then the White House realizes this may just be the tip of the iceberg. These senators are all senior members of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Additional members on the committee include Carl Levin, Edward Kennedy, Joseph Lieberman and Hillary Rodham Clinton- all of which have spoken out against the current Administration on detainee abuse.

B) the majority of the U.S. public applauded the actions of the "gang of 14'. They were/are viewed as elected politicians working to further the country's goals over their own party's. The majority of this country is moderate, and at the time of the agreement only 25% of the public thought that congress was working in their best interest.

2. It's interesting the WaPo (along with most of the rest of the media, the DNC, and RINOs like McCain) continue to refer to 'notorious detainee abuse in Iraq and the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.' There has been no evidence that anybody in the senior ranks of the military, the DoD or the White House authorized Lyndie England to lead detainees around on a leash, or Charles Graber to make them strip and pile up in a naked human pyramid. In fact, a DoD investigation released just a couple of weeks ago found exactly NINE cases of 'abuse' out of over 24,000 interrogations at Gitmo. The cases of 'abuse' are not fundamentally different than what I experienced when I was a fraternity pledge in college.

***True, the DoD did report that their investigation only found nine cases of 'abuse'. However, there have been conflicting reports throughout this scandal. I think the most troubling is the reports that information has been suppressed. Donald Rumsfield has said the additional photos show "acts that can only be described as blatantly sadistic, cruel and inhuman."

Included in the photos and videos that are unreleased-
1. American soldiers beating a prisoner almost to death.
2. American soldiers raping a female prisoner.
3. American soldiers acting inappropriately with a dead body.
4. Iraqi guards raping young boys.

These are the acts caught on video and in photographs...what else has happened?

In addition- If the military is not using methods that could be deemed 'torture', then what is the problem? Why isn't the Administration willing to accept legislation that states that?! Why would they want the door left open?

3. The people in custody at Gitmo are 'unlawful combatants' under international treaty. They do not receive any protection under that or any other treaties that I am aware of. In effect, they are modern-day pirates, who in the past could (and, so far as I am aware, still can) be summarily tried and executed by the captain of whatever naval vessel captured them.

***I cannot accept this argument, and I do not believe the majority of the American public and certainly not the world, accept it either.

I am not trying to 'defend the terrorists' here. I feel they should all be brought to justice, and if justice means death- so be it. However, the term 'unlawful combatant' has so many holes in it, that it would be laughable...if it weren't so sad.

According to the 'Laws of War', a unlawful combatant must be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial." In addition, according to the Geneva Convention an individual must be tried before a military tribunal to determine 'unlawful combatant' status. However, this is irrelevant do to the fact that the Bush Administration chose to bypass the Geneva Convention from the beginning.

I do not feel that detaining individuals who have taken up arms against the United States is the issue. Trying to sidestep domestic and international law by keeping them on ships in international waters or on territory that is not sovereign to the United States, is.

Refusing to guarantee that the military will not abuse or torture them? That is just scary.

Now for the really important stuff: I'm not eager for our men in uniform to have to start engaging in rough treatment or even torture of prisoners. For al Qaeda types, I don't care what happens to them, but I DO care that we don't make our troops do things that besmirch their personal honor or the honor of the armed forces.

However, we really need to start thinking about 'worst case' scenarios, and ask McCain, Graham, Warner, and Co. how far they'd want the military, CIA, or police to go if a terrorist with a nuke or a backpack full of anthrax was on the loose. Under what circumstances are they prepared to accept:

***I do not think that the following questions should be directed at only those who are currently speaking out against certain aspects of the war on terror. These individuals are not 'anti-war liberals'. For example; John McCain is a war hero and definitely 'pro-defense'. I do not think their patriotism is in question, nor their views on terrorism.

I think these are questions the country would have to answer. I'll start. The other 295,734,133 can answer after me-

1. Use of deadly force without warning against terrorist suspects;
***I think this falls under 'preemptive strike', which I am not against. Just make sure we kill the right guys...the term 'suspected' bothers me.

2. Use of harsh interrogation measures, including outright torture, against terrorist suspects;
***No. Not because I am some 'namby-pamby' liberal, because we are the 'Arsenal of Democracy'- We are better than that.

3. Threats against or actual harm to the families of terrorist suspects;
***Interesting. My first response was 'No', however, the idea does have merit. It is a very dangerous line to walk though. I think I would agree with incarceration of terrorist families. I believe it would achieve the same effect in a much more humane manner.

4. Suspension of the civil liberties of terrorist suspects or sympathizers;
***Dangerous ground. I am against any suspension of civil liberties. Once a precedent has been set, there is no turning back. I think that, if the FBI feels that an individual is a threat, they should be able to go through more traditional channels to eliminate that threat.

5. Deportation and / or indefinite detention without trial of people, including US citizens, based on racial / ethnic / religious profiles;
***NO!!! NO!!! NO!!! This thought disgusts me! This was wrong when we did it in WWII, and it would be even more wrong now. The entire Muslim world would turn against the U.S. if we did this.

6. Preemptive strikes, possibly with nuclear weapons, against suspected terrorist bases;
***To use a nuclear weapon in a preemptive strike?! Never.

7. Assassination of suspected terrorists or terrorist sympathizers;
***I honestly have no problem with assassinating terrorists. Sympathizers and suspected terrorists? No.

8. Active efforts to overthrow governments known or suspected to sponsor terrorist groups;
***Hell, aren't we already doing that?! I seem to remember that both Afghanistan and Iraq were for those reasons. We have worked for years to undermine the governments of Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Syria, Libya...

9. Use of deadly force, including minefields, to secure US borders;
***Hmmm...No. I can just see the news now- "14 people blown into Texas...and Mexico...and the Gulf..." An international relations nightmare.

10. Military retaliation, possibly with nuclear weapons, against countries known or suspected to sponsor terrorist groups.
***Military retaliation, to me, means that they did something first. If that is the case, then we would be defending our country. Where nuclear weapons would fit into that equation?

I guess to eliminate weapon producing nuclear facilities...maybe. That is a horrifying Genie.

These are hard, hard questions, and I pray that we never have to start answering 'yes docjim505 | Homepage | 07.24.05 - 3:46 pm |

OK Docjim, now it's your turn. As always, I'm sure you will bring up points that will require my reading 20 different sources to argue. But, that's half the fun, right?

Incipient Rebellion!!!! If only....

2005-07-23T13:14:00.000-06:00

White House opposes ban on detainee mistreatment

Now sing along with me, children- "O' the land of the free, and the home of the brave..."

So, the Bush Administration is lobbying to block legislation that would bar the U.S. military from engaging in "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" of detainees, from hiding prisoners from the Red Cross, and from using interrogation methods not authorized by the new Army field manual.

Well, damnit. This must be another attack on our all-knowing, guiding father by those damn commie lovin' liberals! We must stop it now! Burn 'em at the stake!!!

What? Oh, it's Republicans?! Ooops...

The White House feels they need to tamp down what they feel is an incipient Republican rebellion. Ha!!!

Why would the 'Grand Old Party' be rebelling against it's figure head? How about frustration over the Administration's failure to hold any senior military officials responsible for notorious detainee abuse in Iraq and Guantanamo.

How about looking at who gave the military those orders in the first place?!

In response, the White House is threatening to veto the current defense spending bill. Way to go, El Presidente'. That will show 'em!!! It's not like we are at war or anything...

I could go on and on about this...so I won't. I will only say this-

Way to go, Republicans!!! Take your party back!!! Don't let the Shrubbery keep you from seeing the trees!!!!

****Damn, this just made my day.

The timing is chilling...

2005-07-21T23:27:00.000-06:00

House Votes to Extend Patriot Act

House votes just hours after 2nd London attacks....

*The bill proposed 10-year extensions for roving wire taps and searches of library and medical records.

*The Bush Administration hailed the vote.

*14 provisions have been made permanent.

***That knock on your door in the middle of the night? It's not a drunk friend.

2005-07-21T23:14:00.000-06:00

What to do?! I'm carrying his 'love child'....

Let There be Light

2005-07-21T18:47:00.000-06:00

Every now and then you see something that makes you think, "Damn, that would be cool."

One of the measures in the new energy bill is an extension of Daylight Savings Time. I guess the reason for this is that by adding one hour of daylight the country would save the equivalent of 100,000 barrels of oil per day in energy usage. So, people would get to enjoy an hour of extra 'usable' daylight each day and the country would use 36,500,000 less barrels of oil per year?! Sign me up!!! This is too good to be true!!!

Well, yes...yes it is...

Problem- It seems the Air Transport Association feels that it would be too much trouble to rework their flight schedules. The international routes are already in place for November.

Answer- Airlines do not leave, nor arrive, on time in most cases as it is. Will travelers really notice a difference?

Problem- The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops thinks schoolchildren would be endangered by going to school in the dark.

Answer- Kids in the northern part of the country already go to school in the dark. What super hero keeps them safe now?

Problem- Orthodox Jews think that later sunrises in autumn will pose an irresolvable conflict between prayer and work.

Answer- This is just silly. People don't actually work for the first hour they are at work. Pray then.

So, unfortunately one of the few actually positive measures in the energy bill is being watered down from over two months additional daylight savings time, to four weeks.

That sucks.

Personally, I think it is a conspiracy between Dubya and the oil companies... You never know, I could be right.

Double Standards

2005-07-21T12:37:00.000-06:00

Picture this- A cold and foggy evening in Washington, D.C. when suddenly you hear a commotion in the distance. What is that? Is it? Why, it is! Two older, out of shape white men huffing and puffing down the street... Who are they? What do they want?

Here they come! Should I run? Hide? Heckle them as they pass?

"The Activist Judges are coming!!! The Activist Judges are coming!!!"

The what?! The who?!

"Activist Judges!!! They're going to kill God and make you gay!!! Run!!!!!"

And on they pass. Rumsfield and Ashcroft, shuffling along like all the hounds of hell are after them. But wait! What's this?

"Hey guys! Wait up! I think my goddamn ticker just blew a fuse again!"

Ah yes, Mr. Cheney needs his exercise too.
___________________________________________________________________
Isn't that pretty close to what we have all been hearing? The country is going to hell because activist judges have been legislating from the bench?

'Activist Judges' - 'legislating from the bench'

Damn that sounds good... official like, you know?

But what the f*ck does it mean?! What is an activist judge? How did they get that way? Can they be cured? This is one of life's little mysteries that keeps me up nights... So, I did a little research.

Guess what? There is no true definition for the term 'Activist Judge'. However, I believe the best description I found was this from Dahlia Lithwick at Seatlepi.com-

"Liberal activist judges make law, as opposed to interpreting it. They ignore the plain meaning of texts to invent new rights. Superimposing their moral views onto their legal reasoning, they brazenly advance the cause of the fringe liberal elites in the culture wars."

Hmmm...just as I suspected. Those pagan worshiping, commie lovin', tree huggin' liberals are at it again! This brings me to my next question-

Which of the following is an example of 'legislating from the bench' by an activist judge?

A. A Marion County judge's order that prohibits a father and mother from teaching Wicca to their child because it is not a "mainstream religious belief."

'Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;'

B. Lawrence v. Texas; Two men were found engaged in consensual sex and charged with breaking the Texas Homosexual Conduct Law. The law bans anal and oral sex between people of the same gender. (that's funny in itself- it ain't gay if you're giving it to your wife in the ass...) The Supreme Court overturned the law, stating that sexual acts in private, between consenting adults, cannot be regulated. This ruling is based on the Constitution's guarantee of right to privacy.

This brings up another question-

Do you think the founding fathers ever discussed whether or not to include sodomy in the Constitution?
__________________________________________________________________
Ben Franklin: "Well, I think that about covers it, Gentlemen. I believe we have a very well written document."

Assorted voices: "Hear, hear!!!"

Alexander Hamilton: "Excuse me, good sirs, but I wonder if possibly we should discuss adding additional clauses so as to not confuse future generations as to our intentions."

George Washington: "The point of government is not to decide all things for all people. We have rejected a monarchy for just such a reason."

James Madison: "I agree, and I should hope that our ancestors would be able to think for themselves. We have taken great pains to draft this as a living document."

Alexander Hamilton: "Yes, yes. But have we truly covered everything pertinent?"

Ben Franklin: "Hmmm, let's see...freedom of speech, freedom of religion, right to bear arms, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...blah, blah, blah. I think it's all here."

Alexander Hamilton: "What about say....sexual rights?"

James McHenry: "Sexual rights?! Not only is subject beneath the dignity of this forum, but what role does a proper government play in that?!"

John Blair: "Mr. Hamilton, may I ask why you would feel the need to bring up such a peculiar subject?"

Alexander Hamilton: "I was merely concerned is all."

George Washington: "Concerned about what, my good man? Please, be more specific."

Alexander Hamilton: "Errr....Sodomy?"

James Madison: "Sodomy? In what way? Do you truly think it is governments' duty to denounce or protect it?"

Alexander Hamilton: "Ummmm...."

Ben Franklin: "Oh, Jesus Christ! Alex, you are a sick bastard. What you do on your own time is your concern and no one else's! Meeting adjourned!"
__________________________________________________________________
I like to think that if such a conversation took place, it went that way. Even if that conversation never happened, I do know one thing-

The writers of the Constitution gave us more credit than we deserve.

***Part Two -Coming Soon!!!

2005-07-20T12:13:00.000-06:00

Such A Nice Day...Please Don't Fuck It Up.

Let's try this again...

2005-07-20T10:25:00.000-06:00

OK. Where to begin.

I guess where to begin is at the beginning, the beginning in this case being the previous week when I decided that A) all this blogging stuff is just a load of B.S. and B) that I was disgusted with myself over what I had been posting.

You see, I started this blog to feel that I had a little bit of a voice in what was going on in the world. I also thought that it could be an outlet for my thoughts, feelings and insights on anything I felt like 'throwing out there.' Who cares if anyone actually reads it. I am doing this for me. And, that is how it was at first...then the worst things that could have happened...happened.

1. I received a couple of compliments from other bloggers (with a MUCH larger reader base) on posts I had written.

2. I watched my blog generate a #2 hit on Yahoo!, and a #6 hit on Technorati on two posts I had written.

3. I began getting links and trackbacks from other blogs on my posts. (Which really kind of freaked me out.)

Pretty cool, huh?! It should have been. I should have realized that I was writing about what was important to me, and those issues were obviously connecting with others. That's what I should have realized...

...but I didn't.

What I did instead was try to write more posts like the previous, and try to generate more hits, and try to title my posts so that they would 'pop up' more easily on search engines.

And that, my friends, is a bunch of bullsh*t.

I am not the New York Times, I didn't start this to be the New York Times. Hell, I don't even like the New York Times.

So, after some prodding from my girlfriend- who I think enjoys that I bitch about the state of the world less when I'm blogging -I am going to try this again. Hopefully I will be more honest with myself, and thus others, this time around.

So, what will change? Hell, I don't know. Maybe everything. Maybe nothing. No, that's wrong. One thing that definitely will change- less political crap. One thing that nobody needs is another site spouting off about the current state of politics every day...24/7. What a f*cking whine fest...

No more scouring the news looking for the topic that could be 'hot' for the day. No more reading other peoples blogs or websites that I don't agree with to get ammunition for myself. No more obsessively tracking my blog 'hits' and where they came from. No more acting like so many other idiots with a computer and internet connection...

So, if you continue to read this blog, you may find-

Personal thoughts, commentary or stories
Political viewpoints (I know I cannot get away from that completely)
Random observations
Humor
Recipes
The true secret to Cold Fusion
Pictures of my dog
Pictures of your dog
Who really shot JFK...and framed Roger Rabbit for it
My favorite books
The fact that I think the new 'Battlestar Galactica' kicks ass! (Really, it does...I've even got my girlfriend hooked)

If you find that you don't enjoy reading any longer...so what. This isn't for you, it's for me.

London Terror Bombings +1

2005-07-08T12:16:00.000-06:00

I have been perusing other blogs and websites (left & right), and I have been surprised at the restraint shown on most. On most. There are few notable exceptions, of course-

La Shawn Barber has opened up a discussion on whether we should intern all Muslims or just some Muslims. You can guess where that forum is going... Last I read before I got too sick of it was that we should declare Islam to be the enemy of democracy. I wonder if Michelle Malkin is getting irritated that La Shawn is trying to steal her thunder? I mean, she is even thinking about writing a book defending the strategy of the south during the civil rights movement...

Rush Limbaugh is doing what he does best... eating oxycontin like chiclets while attacking liberals. I didn't know this, but apparently us liberals are already trying put the blame for the bombings on the invasion of Iraq... I guess we believe the bombings wouldn't have happened otherwise. I missed that one, I must not be getting my 'conspiracy of liberals' e-mail updates.

Interestingly, the American Family Association, Focus on the Family nor the Christian Coalition of America have anything about the bombings on their websites. Nothing at all. Does that mean that the British are not Christian enough?

Bill O'Reilly actually spoke about restraint and trying to make sure there is no backlash against innocent Muslims... Damn it Bill, I hate it when you make sense. Then I worry about myself.
(UPDATE)- I should have known better. Bill O'Reilly managed to make it 24 hours before being a pompous ass. No more talk of restraint, just bullshit journalism. Mr. O'Reilly, you can kiss my ass.

A Letter to the Terrorists, From London is great. The London News Review definitely has that traditional British take on the events. Dry, understated humor... or maybe I should say humour.

One last reminder- Muslims did not commit this crime. Terrorists did. Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols claim Christianity as their banner. Now all you nice Christian folks don't want to be labeled with them, do you?

London Terror Bombings

2005-07-07T18:01:00.000-06:00

I've been thinking a lot about the terror attacks in London today. One of the first things I have realized is that I am a hypocrite.

Here I am thinking, 'well, we knew it would happen again'. As in again after 9/11.

I had completely forgotten about Madrid, Spain on March 11, 2004. The Madrid attack caused nearly 2,000 casualties, of which 190 were deaths.

Responsibility for the Madrid attacks was claimed by the Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group. Islamic fundamentalists with suspected ties to Al-Qaida.

Also forgotten was the October 12, 2002 nightclub bombing in Bali, Indonesia which killed 202 people. Jemaah Islamiyah is suspected of responsibility. This organization also has ties to Al-Qaida.

The above incidents are merely highlights of the string of terror attacks by Al-Qaida over the last seven years. Click here for a more complete list.

I am sure that the bombings in London struck a chord because, as Americans, we feel a certain kinship with England. Actually, since obviously I cannot speak for others, I believe that is why it struck a chord in me.

We are all guilty of 'having our blinders on' in some sort of way...

This leads me to the second point I would like to make-

These are terrorists. Right here in the picture. They are monsters that should be hunted down and destroyed.

They are not 'Freedom Fighters' or on some 'Holy Crusade'. They are indiscriminate murderers of men, women and children. They have and will kill anybody, including other Muslims, to make their point.

Wow, that reads just like something off of FOX News. Scary, huh? This is how I feel. I guess I am not the 'namby-pamby' liberal that the conservatives claim I am.

Here is where, according to many conservatives, I am going to 'lose my way.'

This is the war America should be fighting. This is the war we signed on for. This is the war so many brave Americans wanted when they joined the Armed Forces after 9/11.

This is the war America is losing.

Nearly four years after 9/11... Where is Bin Laden?! Why isn't his head on a pike in front of the White House? More importantly- Why aren't we screaming for it?

President Bush stated the following on September 15, 2001-

"...I can assure the American people I am determined, I'm not going to be distracted, I will keep my focus to make sure that not only are these brought to justice, but anybody who's been associated will be brought to justice..."

"We will find who did it. We will smoke them out of their holes; we will get them running; and we will bring them to justice."

...Bullshit.

Currently the United States has 120,000 troops in Iraq. How many troops are in Afghanistan? 17,900. That must mean that the Bush Administration believes Bin Laden is hiding somewhere in Iraq, right? Right?

I am not saying that if we had not invaded Iraq that these terrible attacks would not have happened. I do think we could do more to stop them if we were able to actually bring this country's more than formidable resources to bear.

Unfortunately, I do not think this will happen. The United States has no more resources available. We cannot (as much as I wish we could) leave Iraq. We have made a mess of that country and now must pay the price to clean it up. Our military, national economy and international relations are strained. The will of the American people is in doubt.

This leads me to one final thought-

We, the citizens of the United States, must show more intelligence in the wake of these latest attacks than we have done in the past. We must not let this Administration use these events to 'rally the troops' for another episode of 'nation-building'. Think carefully when you hear how these attacks somehow justify the war in Iraq, or how Al-Qaida is now in its' 'last throes'. We have been sold this bill of goods before.

Now team, let's go out there and kick some ass! Lets' just try to kick the right one this time, eh?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: George Bush said in 2003 that "That's why we're bringing Al-Qaida to justice. Seventy five percent of them have been brought to justice."

That must mean the other twenty five percent are really f*cking busy, right? Or do I smell bullshit again...

2005-07-07T15:01:00.000-06:00

Great Britian- Stand tall. Our thoughts and prayers are with you.

Omaha World Herald- No journalistic standards.

2005-07-07T11:36:00.000-06:00

I found this story through Virtual Pus, which A) is a great blog that I recommend you visit, and B) has a knack for picking up on stories that are missed elsewhere.

That is my plug for basically 'borrowing' this story for my blog as well. My latest example of being another unknowledgeable hack!

As you know, one of my favorite topics for jumping on the soapbox is separation of Church & State. I honestly feel that this single issue is the core problem of so many others this country is dealing with.

I truly believe in religious freedom. However, I also believe in freedom from religion. If you want to start a religion worshiping various kitchen utensils, aliens (hey, it works for Tom), or the magic box that talks to you in your living room, fine by me. If you want to preach on street corners, great! Maybe there is a patio nearby where I can have a beer and enjoy the entertainment. If you want your religion unduly influencing my government, no. I draw the line there.

Pretty simple and straightforward, right? I don't think that is unreasonable.

Well, obviously I am a heathen and going to burn in the pit of Hell- so my opinion does not count.

So, if you are a 'God fearing' Christian in Omaha, Nebraska and just happen to also be the Executive Editor of the Omaha World Herald, what do you do when a (GASP!) atheist challenges that a statue of the 10 Commandments in a public park is unlawful? Let's just find out, shall we?

(Drum roll please...)

You print his name, describe the car he drives, list his license plate number and even list where he works...

I believe that this is in truly poor taste in itself, however...

This man had already testified under oath that he has received death threats against himself and his family.

DEATH THREATS. OVER A STATUE. ARE YOU F*CKING KIDDING ME?

Larry King (ironic, no?), the Executive Editor in question, refuses to apologize for possibly putting this family in danger. As he says, "The story speaks for itself."

As I say, "You had better be a God fearing Christian Larry, because Jesus is coming back to shove his foot up your ass."

Since there seems to be no thought to 'reasonable discourse' in this little drama unfolding in middle-America, I agree with Virtual Pus that listing all the relevant information about 'Larry King- Nutjob for Christ' is perfectly fine.

Here it is-

Larry King, Executive Editor
Omaha World Herald
larry.king@owh.com
(402) 444-1000
1334 Dodge Street
Omaha, NE 68102

I recommend that everybody drop Larry a line. Just so he knows we're thinking about him.

Side Note****
The judge ruling on the case did agree with the ACLU that the monument "conveys a message that Christianity and Judaism are favored religions." The ruling is currently under appeal.

President gets 'boo-boo' on bike

2005-07-06T16:32:00.000-06:00

El Presidente' seems to have had a run-in with local law enforcement in Scotland. While riding his bicycle (everybody sing it- bicycle! BICYCLE!) in the rain, Dubya collided with a police officer who was riding in the security detail.

No charges are being pressed at this time, although Dubya did refuse a breathalyzer test. The Presidential bike was mildly damaged, according to reports.

According to Presidential puppet-boy Scott McClellen, this incident is completely different than the drunk-driving conviction Mr. Bush received in Kennebunkport, Maine.

Unconfirmed sources say that El Presidente' and his entourage were returning from a pub crawl with the Bush daughters.

These 'men' lie.....a lot.

2005-07-06T16:26:00.000-06:00

OK...a little more research about the whole 'Plame' affair, and I do know this... Some people are lying. I won't say who, but I bet you can guess...

Judith Miller is in the slammer

2005-07-06T15:11:00.000-06:00

I wish that I had followed this story more. I'm not sure how I feel about the whole thing yet. From my understanding, this is the problem-

A. Judith Miller does not feel she has to divulge her source in the White House. This would set a precedent that an 'un-named source' is not necessarily that any longer. Freedom of the press, first amendment rights and so on...

B. Federal prosecutors want to know who it is that is leaking government secrets and putting CIA agents lives in danger. They are more concerned with an answer than the first amendment in this case.

Damn. There are good points on both sides.

If I were in the CIA (hmmm...maybe I am, you never know), I would want to know that the government had my back, and, if someone did leak information that they should not have, they would pay the consequences.

If I were a reporter, I would want my rights, and the rights of my sources, protected.

Once again, no easy answers. As the English say, 'a bit of a sticky-wicket'.

Am I missing something? I am open to suggestions and/or comments.

Santorum- Stupid Quote of the Day

2005-07-06T13:04:00.000-06:00

"I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts. As I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships. And that includes a variety of different acts, not just homosexual. I have nothing, absolutely nothing against anyone who's homosexual. If that's their orientation, then I accept that. And I have no problem with someone who has other orientations. The question is, do you act upon those orientations?" -Rick Santorum, AP interview, April 7, 2003

Huh? Well I guess that covers it. You can be 'oriented' to whatever you feel like- just do not ever, ever act upon it.

Maybe he will publish a list of acceptable sexual practices for the rest of us heathens.

He's always watching.

2005-07-05T12:24:00.000-06:00

Is that why you go blind? www.bettybowers.com

Celebrate our "Independence"

2005-07-04T09:53:00.000-06:00

Glenn Reynolds has posted a short bit about what America's Independence Day is really about. I think it is worth a read not only because he tries to bring the focus back to the original intent, but also that he touches on a point I have been thinking about lately.

As Mr. Reynolds points out, when America proclaimed it's independence, all right-thinking individuals were horrified. Who were these upstarts that have the audacity to believe that common people could govern themselves?! Democracy and republicanism would only lead to disaster...

Well, we all know how this 'grand experiment' has worked so far. Not always perfectly, but definitely the best option we have.

Now I could get all 'snarky' here and beat on conservatives about how this is an outstanding example that change is not always bad... but I won't. That is not what I have been thinking about lately.

You see, what I have been thinking about is this-

Depending on who I am speaking with, I can be labeled a conservative, moderate or liberal. You could probably throw in centrist and progressive as well, but to be honest, I am becoming a bit confused as to what all the differences really are.

I'm pretty sure that I am not the only one...

For example-

Conservatives focus on the Constitution in a literal way to promote a 'Christian Nation'. Through that, they promote prayer in schools, faith-based initiatives, blurring of church & state and pro-life...

With me so far?

The founding fathers of this great country were a bunch of RADICAL LIBERALS! They believed in crazy ideas like democratic rule! They pushed the colonies into war with the most powerful nation on earth. They were (GASP) traitors to the crown!!!

Before you get all pissed off about what I am trying to say... No, I am not comparing our nations' founders to anyone else. Or our struggle for independence to any other organization or country.

This is the point I am trying to make- Times change. (If you feel like it, you could sing a little 'Turn, Turn, Turn' here...)

According to the Declaration of Independence-

"...all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

This statement has always given me a chill. I feel it focuses perfectly on the foundation of America. However, when it was written, it wasn't precisely true-

Any men of color were not included. Women were not included.

Ironically, one of the first documents written that covers civil rights was not truly accurate until nearly 200 years later. And...it was 'liberals' who championed these causes.

I use the term 'liberal' here not to describe party affiliation. I use it to describe progressive thinking. Individuals, such as our founding fathers, who see an injustice or an archaic concept, and realize that change is necessary.

Liberal- Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of ideas and behavior of others; broad minded. -Dictionary.com

Conservative- Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change. Of or relating to treatment by gradual, limited, or well established procedures; not radical. -Dictionary.com

So what is my point, you ask? Just this-

Take a moment to consider if the conservatives 229 years ago had prevailed. The same men that we build monuments too would be labeled traitors. We would probably be the 'Dominion of America', and obviously things would be very different.

Does that mean I favor embracing liberalism in all things? No. What I am trying to say is that much of what we take for granted today were radical concepts before.

Take a moment today to enjoy your 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...', and be thankful that our ancestors were such crazy 'liberals'.

Puts a different spin on it, doesn't it?!

Lying Liars Lying again and getting caught in their Lying Lies...

2005-07-01T14:09:00.000-06:00

This Administration just cannot quit lying! What is going on in Washington?! I think they're just doing it to keep everyone entertained... or possibly they're just really this stupid.

'State Department Doctors Bono Quote'

It seems the State Department has taken two completely separate Bono interviews about AIDs relief to Africa and spliced them together to get the message they want! A completely different message than was in the original statements.

And now we know that Ann Coulter officially works for the government....

Check out the article. The dishonesty doesn't stop there.

Could the President really be impeached?

2005-07-01T09:23:00.000-06:00

The latest Zogby poll shows that El Presidente' did not win the 'hearts and minds' of the American public with his latest speech on Iraq. Actually, his approval rating dipped another point...down to 43%. The most telling number is that his best approval ratings- in red states, of course- was only 51%. However, this could be because Dubya is not conservative enough for some of these voters.

Shubbery received negative marks from 25% of Republicans, 86% of Democrats, and 58% of Independents.

Now, this is the number that interested me- 42% of voters say that if Bush did lie about the reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should impeach him. Not a majority, but a much higher number than previously.

It seems that the White House spin machine has not been as successful as hoped...

Am I getting excited for no reason? Am I having visions of storming the Bastille, screaming "off with his head!!!" (in a figurative manner, of course), only to be disappointed? Probably. However, I do think that the tide is turning. The public has a bad taste in their mouth, and even if they are not sure why, they know it is time for change.

2006 will be the answer. If the House and Senate are Democrat controlled after the elections, we all may just be served 'chilled monkey brains' on a silver platter.

Secret prisoners on warships

2005-07-01T00:04:00.000-06:00

Are we really doing this?! Please, please tell me we are not.
'U.S. suspected of keeping secret prisoners on warships: UN official'

So the UN has heard enough rumors about this to take it seriously?! Please don't comment to me about the UN being a 'liberal' organization that is out to 'get' America. That is a simplistic view to justify our actions.

This scares the crap out of me. Have we really come to this?

Why is it so hard for some people to understand that this is wrong?

If this is true, the United States- the 'Arsenal of Democracy'- has truly lost it's way.

What happened to the country I love?

2005-06-30T14:38:00.000-06:00

Yeah!!! So take that Canada and Spain!!! www.bettybowers.com

Michelle Malkin says "Go on and Fight!"

2005-06-30T13:44:00.000-06:00

Some people just piss me off. At this moment it is Michelle Malkin. Why do people still pay her to write?! She authors books which have shoddy research...or no research, gains 'respectability' on the coat-tails of other right-wing extremists and has the gall to consider herself a journalist.

She is 'Another Unknowledgeable Hack'.

The lastest vile drivel out from Ms. Malkin? 'Namby-Pamby Nation'

In this outstanding piece of commentary, Michelle explains how teaching children in America about "non-violent conflict resolution" and "promoting constructive dialogue" is turning our youth into a nation of namby pambies. Oh, I forgot that we are trying to return this country to the stone age. Next time I disagree with someone I'll just beat the crap out of them.

The program, which has obviously filled Ms. Malkin 'with the urge to defecate', is called "Operation Respect: Don't Laugh at Me". What is the goal? "To transform schools, camps and organizations focused on children and youth, into more compassionate, safe and respectful environments." Holy Shit!!! I never realized that it was so subversive...

Fraulien Malkin says that she isn't against teaching respect. Obviously, she wants a more 'aggressive' respect to be focused on... Maybe something along the lines of "respect me or I'll cut you, man", or "respect me, or I'll send my army to your country" type of thing.

What really gets her granny-panties in a bunch? Peter Yarrow, of Peter, Paul & Mary is the founder of this program. F*ck me, I new this was a commie front!

WWMD? What Would Michelle Do? Teach vigorous self-defense. That way your child does not need to learn to accept others, as long as he/she can kick their asses.

Now, I don't sign up for all of the extreme-left dogma any more than I do the right, but I cannot believe that teaching elementary and middle school students to deal with conflict in a productive manner is bad. I remember growing up. It comes as second-nature to fight. Children need to be taught that there is a different way.

Maybe that's it! Ms. Malkin wasn't shown enough love as a child. Could somebody go give her a big hug?

While you are doing that, I'll shove my 'namby-pamby' foot up her ass.

2005-06-29T14:19:00.000-06:00

www.bettybowers.com

"Victory means Exit Strategy..." It's so clear now.

2005-06-29T10:45:00.000-06:00

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is." -George W. Bush, 4/9/1999

"I think it's also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn." -George W. Bush, 6/5/1999

Both of the above quotes are from George W. Bush criticizing President Clinton over the deployment of troops in Kosovo. Remember Kosovo? That was the U.N. peacekeeping mission to stop the civil war and genocide raging in southeastern Europe at the time. In other words- We were requested to send troops.

"It doesn't make sense to have a timetable. You know, if you give a timetable, you're- you're conceding too much to the enemy." -George W. Bush, 6/24/2005

This quote is about the war in Iraq. Iraq? That is the country we invaded to destroy non-existent WMDs. Oh yeah, and it looks as though we may have "fudged" the intelligence a bit to justify it... And the Administration keeps pushing a non-existent link between 9/11 and Iraq to stifle any dissent... And the Administration is suppressing true casualty and cost figures for the war...

Personally, I think as the leader of the free world, Bush is an idiot. However, as a politician? Not so much. He and his Administration will do whatever it takes to keep the country moving in the direction they choose. For this, and several other reasons, there will be no withdrawl from Iraq. If we withdraw, then the whole house of cards comes tumbling down...

A Call to Arms... Or is it A Karl (Rove) to Arms?

2005-06-28T10:47:00.000-06:00

I feel that nothing is a more powerful statement against this Administration and against the Iraq War than when members of our country's military (past and present) feel the need to speak out.

Sure, we have heard criticism from politicians such as John Kerry and John McCain. However, while I have a great deal of respect for both of these individuals, they are politicians.

What is more powerful are the 'everyday' soldiers who risk their lives for our country. Unlike ANYBODY in the current Administration, most of these soldiers have risked their lives for the rest of us. They risk their lives even when they do not agree... That is a selflessness that is uncommon, and should be treated with the honor it deserves.

I recommend that you take a few minutes to read the letters posted at 'Taking the Fight to Karl'. Veterans and current serviceman alike are extremely unhappy with the current state of affairs.

Is it any wonder the military cannot reach it's recruitment numbers?!

Rumsfield says.... Hell, I'm not really sure.

2005-06-27T09:52:00.000-06:00

Sunday, Defense Secretary Rumsfield said that the Iraq insurgency "could go on for any number of years." Afterwards he defended Vice President Cheney's comment that the insurgency is in it's "last throes", saying that their are many ways you could take that...

Mr. Rumsfield then made this pathetic face and said, "Please don't hurt me, I was only following orders...I'm not responsible. Don't you see?"

Support Our Troops!!! No silly, not by enlisting...buy this hat!

2005-06-25T12:01:00.000-06:00

I saw this on Wonkette, which got it from RAI, which saw it on NewsMax... The captions are courtesy of RAI. My question- How the F*CK does purchasing this hat support our troops?! I could not find any references to profits going to anything but NewsMax.

Maybe that is how it supports our troops... "Buy this hat so we can keep printing GOP party drivel and other lies about everyone else! Be a Patriot!"

As a side note- Man, those soldiers look pissed.

Some People Just Don't Get It....

2005-06-24T12:40:00.000-06:00

Landover Baptist- Where the Worthwhile Worship
Unsaved Unwelcome. As Jesus Commanded.

OK, I love this site. It is just the sort of twisted humor I enjoy. I am also impressed with how much work has gone into it. Where else can you read about-

1. Vacation Bible Gun Camp, 2. Oral Sex: A Dangerous and Deadly New Trend!, or 3. Yoga- A Religion for Sex Addicts.

What is really entertaining is all the e-mail from people saying that Landover Baptist is an evil church. What does this say? Is it that people have truly lost their collective sense of humor? Or is it that some 'real' religious groups have come so close to acting and preaching in the same way, that people can't tell the difference anymore?

I don't know. I do know that 'The Daily Show with Jon Stewart' can put on a more professional looking newscast than some big networks. Maybe it is along those lines.

Anyway, stop by Landover Baptist to get your soul saved. While you are there, check out the 'Sexy Christian Offerings' gift shop to pick up a 'What Would Jesus Do' thong. Then you can get your groove on in a Godly way...

Special Attraction: Remove Your Gayness Here.

2005-06-23T15:33:00.000-06:00

You would think I was some kind of gay rights advocate with as much as I post about the Religious Right's attack on the so called 'Homosexual Agenda'. I guess that since I do post so much about this issue, then I am an advocate of sorts. However, to me it is not about 'gay rights', it is about freedom of equality, freedom to pursue what it is that makes you happy, freedom from persecution. In a word- tolerance.

Tolerance; The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others. -Dictionary.com

We are all guilty of practicing intolerance. We have all been raised in an environment that teaches stereotypes. There is no way around it. Personally, I was raised in a conservative, religious environment. My intolerance is toward those people who are the religious right. For this reason, I have to try to be careful not to let my personal feelings overshadow the point I am trying to make. Sometimes I succeed, sometimes I don't.

However, this is where I differ with the new Conservative Christian Movement-

I do not care if you like to sit in your house naked and beat yourself over the head with your Bible. If you believe that you can absorb the word of God by osmosis through this action...more power to you.

Well, what if I wanted to do this out in public while preaching to passing crowds, you say?

More power to you. That is absolutely your right...up till you are arrested for public indecency, that is.

Do you see my point here? I do not agree with your lifestyle...actually I would think you are a little looney...but I will tolerate, and even at some level, appreciate the fact that in this country you can do this. You are not hurting anyone. If I do not want to listen or be around you, I can just leave. It is that simple.

Simple to me? Yes. Simple to others? Not so much.

Let's start by setting aside the first argument I always hear-

Homosexuality is unraveling the fabric of our society.
Really? I do not believe that. Is it hard for some to accept? Yes. Does accepting homosexuality as a more mainstream lifestyle mean that we, as a society, are going to have to adapt? Yes. Will it be a challenge? To some of us, yes.

What you need to realize is that Religious Conservatives were the same group that were/are against-
1. The Emancipation Proclamation, 2. Women's Suffrage, 3. The Civil Rights Movement, 4. Separation of Church and State, and 5. Pro-Choice.

Religious Conservatives were for- Prohibition...that in itself is bad enough.

Each of the 5 points above were/are claimed by religious conservatives to undermine our 'Christian Nation'. Somehow, I think that their track record speaks for itself.

So what is my meandering point, you ask?

Focus on the Family and Love Won Ou t are having a conference in Seattle this weekend. A conference in which you can hear "powerful stories of ex-gay men and women" and how "America's gay activist organizations have promulgated this myth that homosexuals are born gay..." Now it would be hypocritical of me to say that these organizations cannot say these things. I am not going to attend this conference and their views do not hurt anyone.

If it was that simple-

The reason for this conference is to set a new agenda for the Conservative Christian Movement.

Dr. Bill Maier, VP and resident psychologist for Focus on the Family says, "Leaders of Love Won Out are very forthright in stating that the church has often fallen short when it comes to the homosexual community."

Don't think that he means that the church is going to open it's arms and offer tolerance though. What they are going to 'offer' is "reparitive therapy" to gays. They are going to fix what is wrong with you. The belief is- You are not born gay, so you can stop being gay. If you stop being gay, then you won't go to Hell.

Interestingly, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association and the National Association of School Psychologists have all declared that homosexuality is NOT a mental disorder....that can or should be cured.

Remember, one of the executive members of this 'coalition' stated that gays should have to wear warning labels, just like cigarettes. I don't think that is a very loving attitude...

Is that tolerance?

Karl Rove attacks, bites Democrats in Washington

2005-06-23T12:11:00.000-06:00

Karl Rove states the following in an attack on the Democratic Party- "...liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers. Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war."

Democrats responded with a call for apology or resignation. Howard Dean to Bush to "show some leadership" and reign in his pit bull. However, they did offer to foot the bill for therapy...obviously Rove has some issues.

The White House defended Rove's remarks while scratching behind his ear, saying that the Democrats were engaging in partisan attacks... Who attacked who is obviously not clear to all parties involved.

As a side note-

Immediately after Rove's remarks about Democrats he continued with "Look! I can stuff 34 oreos in my mouth at the same time!!! I have chipmunk cheeks! Look!!! Look!!!". He then proceeded to accomplish just such a feat.

Self-Righteous B...well, it rhymes with 'Witch'.

2005-06-22T16:06:00.000-06:00

La Shawn Barber has her panties in a bunch again...or should I say, still?

I think that it is funny that an individual sets up a website to share with the world their personal thoughts on everything and anything they think they know about, and when somebody posts a comment that is not in agreement with the esteemed author, the comment is deleted, the website access blocked and the individual threatened.

Sound extreme? It is. However, it is true. Yours truly enjoyed just this special reception for disagreeing with the above mention 'wicked witch'. Now it seems that she is taking it a step farther and actually trying to get someone fired.

OK, now I am going to come out and say it...You dumb bitch. If you don't want anyone to disagree with you, don't allow comments.

This, ahem, 'woman' spouts on and on about her upstanding values, morality and all around 'squeakiness'. She's a Christian that just wants a husband so she can stay home and cook, clean and pop out little neo-cons...God help her children...

If this is a Christian than Jesus is coming back pissed. Just take a second to browse her blog. It is full of all those 'Christian' values like, intolerance, hatred and bigotry. All while she squeals about 'Christian Persecution'...

The funny part? You can't leave a comment about her trying to get someone fired. Coward.

****Please feel free to leave a comment about how much I suck. The worst you will receive back is a comment in kind.

Bush says "Go Nuclear to glow...I mean go...green."

2005-06-22T12:33:00.000-06:00

Bush wants to go 'nucular'!

Thank God he's talking about nuclear energy and not nuclear weapons. Anytime our beloved Leader uses the word nuclear, or nucular, or any other deviation of said word, I break out in a cold sweat. It's not that I have anything against nuclear power. I just don't like somebody with so much power and obviously an elementary school science education thinking along those lines.

Here is a funny part-

Bush wants to push nuclear energy because it does not emit greenhouse gases, which cause global warming. What?! Isn't this the same Administration that doesn't think that greenhouse gases are a cause of 'so called' global warming?

El Presidente' Bush goes on to say, "Nuclear energy produces 20 percent of America's electricity needs, saving about as much carbon dioxide as now comes from all our cars and trucks."

Hmmm...Exxon Mobil is not going to be happy with that statement. Maybe Philip Cooney can work on turning that around. He obviously has a successful track record thus far.

The Truth Shall Make You Free....

2005-06-22T10:32:00.000-06:00

The White House's White-Out Problem
from thinkprogress.org

Altered documents include-

The environmental impact of cattle grazing... The health issues in relation to hog farms.... Proof of Climate Change... Air Quality concerns at Ground Zero... The Toxicology of Mercury.... The effectiveness of condoms... Effects of oil drilling on the Arctic Refuge... Abortion... HIV/AIDS... Cancer... Stem Cell Research... Ground Water...

Obviously, if some piece of information does not agree with what you wish it to say, then change it.

Shouldn't this be illegal?

This was a secret memo to President Bush

2005-06-21T19:11:00.000-06:00

Let's see.... You currently enjoy the lowest approval ratings you've had in 2 terms. The Iraq war is a mess -and everybody knows it. The war on terrorism is, for the most part, going no-where fast. The country has told you to keep your grimy mitts off of Social Security. Unfortunately, it seems that most other people understand science better than you and want stem-cell research to progress. And finally, not only is the minority party constantly giving you the finger, your own party has begun to look at you as the lame-duck that you are.

Where to go from here?

Oh, I've got it!!!! Let's get back to our roots and bash the gays!!!! That will get all the 'troops' excited!!! What you should do is call for a ban on gay marriage again. Pull that old campaign promise 'out of the closet'...dust it off, and it's 'onward Christian soldiers' time!

Completely disregard the fact that you will never be able to get the amendment to pass. Who cares?! Think about how you can, once again, deflect the attention away from your lies, pandering, and general disregard for the Constitution of this country.

Following is a list of real problems which can, at least temporarily, be 'swept under the rug' while we embrace our religious fervor-

1. Iraq War- $322+ billion dollars, nearly 10,000 American casualties (ooops, that's another secret), no exit strategy....

2. The Downing Street Memo- could be grouped with the Iraq War...except that you could be impeached if the whole story leaks out.

3. National Economy- 57% disapprove...I'm sure it's those damn educated Americans, too...

4. Guantanamo Bay- Who even knows where Geneva is, Mr. President? Certainly not in Cuba.

5. Social Security Reform- Your own party is against you on this one...

6. Education- The 'No Child Left Behind' Act. A mediocre bill with mediocre results.

7. Environment- Your Administration allowed the world's largest oil company to write policy.

8. World Opinion- The United States has lost all standing and credibility in the world that it gained after 9/11.

9. Political Corruption- Halliburton, Enron, Iraq, oh the list goes on and on....

10. Religious Corruption- The use of religion as a shield to further selfish goals.... or should I say 'Heil'?!

So, in conclusion Mr. President, we feel that it is in your best interest to 'attack' a group of individuals- never mind that they are American citizens- to pull your ass, I mean ratings, out of the fire.

We feel that it is important that you do so because, honestly Mr. President, if you do not keep the 'Religious Reich'...I mean right, on your side...then who do you have?

Got to watch more C-SPAN...

2005-06-17T15:12:00.000-06:00

Hey kids! Parents won't let you watch porn? No prob! Just tell them your watching C-SPAN. They'll be proud of you...while you get your freek on! ***Courtesy of Wonkette***

How to beat a dead corpse...I mean horse.

2005-06-17T10:04:00.000-06:00

Gov. Bush wants Schiavo 911 investigation

How long did it take her husband to call after 1990 collapse?

"Between 40 and 70 minutes elapsed before the call was made, and I am aware of no explanation for the delay. In light of this new information, I urge you to take a fresh look at this case without any preconceptions as to outcome." -Gov. Jeb Bush, in a letter to State Attorney Bernie McCabe.

In light of this new information? From an event that happened in 1990?!

So what is this new information? In 1992 Michael Schiavo testified that he found his wife collapsed at 5:00am, in a television interview in 2003 he said 4:30am. That is it.

So, lesson to be learned here- If you recall an event in your life from 13 years prior, you had better be sure to say the exact same thing you said 11 years prior to that.

Basically, there has NEVER been any evidence of foul-play in this matter, and that has not been because no one was trying to find it. Does that mean that it's over? Hell no. I am beginning to think that this case will never be laid to rest until Michael Schiavo is 'made to pay' for his crimes.

Are these real crimes? Well, that doesn't seem to matter here, does it?

I can't believe I missed this...

2005-06-16T16:45:00.000-06:00

Excerpt from Keith Olbermann interview with Mary Carey about the NRCC Presidential Dinner-

"You know, Republicans can party almost as much as porn stars. I think they can drink as much. There were some really drunk guys by the end of the night. I was getting propositions to have threesomes with wives or mistresses. I was offered money from oil tycoons! I mean, it's pretty exciting. I didn't take any money and I didn't do any threesomes, but it was pretty- I was just surprised... ...and everyone loved me and got drunk and took pictures with me. So I want to keep going to Republican events. I'm a fully converted Republican now."

Oh, the Right Wing Hypocrisy....

2005-06-16T15:01:00.000-06:00

Oh the humanity!!!! Such a waste...struck down in the prime of their young, precious lives....

What the F*CK is this?!

2005-06-16T12:52:00.000-06:00

H.J. Res. 24: Proposing amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution.

What is the 22nd Amendment to the United States Constitution?
'No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice...'

Once again... WHAT THE F*CK IS THIS?! And... Why is it being sponsored by the House DEMOCRATIC Whip?!

Article tracked from MetaFilter.

I am stunned.

I knew it was the "cheesiest", but I didn't know it was (GASP) gay

2005-06-16T10:25:00.000-06:00

Kraft says it Proudly Supports the Gay Games

"Diversity is more than a word many people like to say. At Kraft we truly respect all kinds of differences. And diversity is not a selective concept. By definition, it's nothing if not inclusive. We respect diversity of ethnicity, gender, experience, background, personal style and yes, sexual orientation and gender identity. Recognizing, respecting and valuing these differences helps us be a more successful business and a workplace where all employees can realize their full potential." -Marc Firestone, Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary of Kraft Foods, Inc.

Well, as you can guess, the American Family Association has their collective panties in a bunch over this one. They want people to send a letter to Kraft stating how disgusted they are about this. The AFA seems to think everything is about the 'Homosexual Agenda'...

I, on the other hand, think that not only is the above statement by Kraft one of the most well written defenses I have seen for diversity in quite a while, it is also smart business. So, I am asking that you write Kraft as well, and tell them not to buckle under the AFA's pressure. Remember, the AFA is the same group who has boycotted Disney, Ford and Wal-Mart.

I do not believe the issue here is whether or not you agree with the morals of a homosexual lifestyle. The issue is cultural diversity. Support the right of individuals to make their own decisions.

E-mail- Roger K. Deromedi, CEO Kraft Foods @ rderomedi23@kraft.com (you will have to cut & paste to your e-mail)

2005-06-15T17:08:00.000-06:00

'nuff said.

White House official rewarded for tampering?

2005-06-15T15:07:00.000-06:00

Former White House Council for Environmental Quality chief of staff Philip Cooney, has been picked up by Exxon Mobil. You may remember that Cooney enjoyed 'creative editing' of scientific papers he did not agree with. You may also remember that previous to his White House posting, he had been chief lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute.

Why people feel that this Administration is corrupt is beyond me....

Exxon Mobil, the world's largest oil company, is among the most skeptical that greenhouse emissions from burning fossil fuels contributes to global warming...

...Just like the Bush Administration.

Exxon Mobil is also against signing the Kyoto Climate Accord, which would limit the amount of greenhouse gases countries could pump into the atmosphere...

...Just like the Bush Administration.

Exxon Mobil has also questioned the certainty of climate science as it relates to global warming...

...Just like the Bush Administration.

Is anybody picking up a pattern here, or is it just me?

According to documents obtained by The Guardian UK, Exxon had an "active involvement" in helping to determine climate change policy for the Bush Administration. In fact, the Administration went so far as to seek Exxon's advice as to what climate change policies the company might find acceptable.

51% of you elected this idiot for a second term. Is this what you want?! And if you are reading this and don't understand what the big deal is...GET THE HELL OFF MY SITE!

****************************
Side note-

For the second time in as many weeks, Bush has effectively told Prime Minister Blair to 'shove it'. First it was debt relief for Africa- No. The U.S. will not do anymore than already planned. Now, climate change. Bush will not back Blair's initiative to address global warming at the upcoming G8 summit.

Sorry Blair, but it seems that your 'American buddy' is hanging you out to dry. Hope you learned your lesson.

'Irreversible brain damage' Bah! What do doctors know?

2005-06-15T14:09:00.000-06:00

Schiavo Autopsy shows irreversible brain damage

So, the medical examiner's office has released the autopsy findings for Terri Schiavo. The findings state- 'persistent vegetative state', 'massive and irreversible brain damage' and 'blindness'. Also, no evidence of any type of abuse. To put it bluntly, Terri Schiavo's brain was one-half the size it should have been and no amount of therapy could have changed that.

So, how does the medical examiner's office know this? 274 external and internal body images, review of Terri Schiavo's medical records, police reports and social services agency records.

I believe that qualifies as pretty damn thorough.

However, not everyone agrees-

President Bush, that man-o'-science he is, still believes that Schiavo should have been kept on life support. So, even after we know beyond any doubt that she would never improve, and that for all intent and purposes was already dead... Bush would have kept her hooked up to machines.

I'm sorry, but that is just f*cking cruel.

Terri's parents, the Schindlers, do not believe the autopsy findings and are going to take them to other medical experts, after which, they may take some 'unspecified legal action'.

I feel very bad for the Schindlers. They have lost their daughter in a battle that has taken up a good portion of their lives. Now is the time to move on. A seven-year legal battle, 40 separate judges, six refusals by the Supreme Court, and finally an autopsy have brought this to a close. It is time to stop listening to all the lawyers and fundamentalists- they do not have your best interests in mind...only their own.

*****************************************
As a side note;

Bill Frist said on March 19, 2005- "I question it based on review of the video footage which I spent an hour or so looking at last night in my office. She certainly seems to respond to visual stimuli."

-Way to go, Bill. See what happens when you stick your neck into business you don't belong? I hope your constituents remember.

"Terri Schiavo is now a martyr. Her death is not in vain." -Florida Rep. Dennis Baxley

A martyr for what Dennis? Idiot.

"The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior, but not today." -Tom Delay, threatening, well, pretty much everyone who doesn't agree with him...

Guess what, Tom ol' buddy...the judges, doctors, etc? They were right. I guess the only person left to do some answering is you. What about it Tom?