December

photo by wickline copyright 2008

Christmas Lights 08

This is Halloween

Well...
Now that I ran out of shit to gripe about - Here's some pictures of my house.

De-evolution of society

.

What the world needs now is a good old fashion socialism paranoia witch hunt!

...and a lot less fags.

.

Well dag’um

-
That was perdy cute, Sarah. The way you was droppin yer g’s ‘n’ gettin all folksy ‘n’ all. It just warmed the cockles of my cockles.

Now I get it. Logically it is sound strategy to do what has worked in the past. And dumbing down the White House has clearly resulted in a couple of Republican victories. But a couple of thoughts you may consider are that first of all, we’re at a time and in a situation where most Americans are going “Oh shit. Right now we need the smartest individuals among us to get together and fix this mess.” And secondly, just that — well, when it comes to the task of dumbing down the White House, you and John have a pretty tough act to follow.
-

A beer with The President…

You remember that?
Remember… during the 2000 Presidential campaign? There were galloping herds of imbeciles coming out of the woodwork – testifying that their decision to vote for Bush was based on this idea of having a beer with him.

Now I’m not even going to get into what an ignorant hillbilly method of choosing a president that is. In fact let’s assume that it’s okay. Alright now, let’s follow up with those folks and ask them how they enjoyed that beer with the President. Oh, what happened? You voted for a guy who ran two corporations into the ground during his tenure in the private sector and then he ran our county into the ground – and what, he never showed up at your neighborhood bar to have that beer with you? Wow man, that’s a bummer. I wonder what happened.

Well its eight years later and many of those same discriminating voters are likely to be setting an equally dumbed down bar of scrutiny to this election. So if any of you can hear me I’m going to try to help you out. Now pay close attention…

Even if you were allowed to vote as many times as you wanted to, and you cast a thousand votes for the Republican ticket, you still would not get to fuck Sarah Palin.

Really. I'm sorry, but this is the truth. You really don't get to fuck her.

Wow

So when the partisan finger pointing broke out about whose fault it was that the bailout bill failed a Republican Congressman took the floor and actually stated that 12 Republican votes which were poised to be cast in favor of bill flipped against it in a direct reaction to Nancy Pelosi’s little speech that scolded the Republican policies which contributed to this mess.

Wow. Every breathing American politician has been climbing over each other to be heard declaring what a uniquely critical situation this is. But when it came down to the moment of doing something about it, the Republicans pulled out because Nancy hurt their feelings?

What happened to the tough cowboys with the battle cry: “Country First!” And again, it was not a Democrat telling us this. It was a Republican Congressman delivering the news — that at the zero hour, they scrap the only solution on the table because Nancy was mean to them.
Wow.

$700 billion bailout

The quintessential flagship example of how truly reckless "Fiscal Conservatives" are.

Logic has a sort of polar magnetism. Eventually, whether you choose to run from it, charge at it, or plot a thoughtful course toward it, what is logical must be faced. You can act responsibly, taking control of carefully paced steps toward it – or you can ignore the sickness until it has done irreparable damage to vital organs. As this is the case with many things in all areas of our lives it is also the case with the fiscal policies of large governments.

There have always been realistic members of our government whom have been in favor of the clearly logical objective of properly tempering our free markets with adequate oversight and regulation. This is really a no-brainer. As with most things, much of what makes capitalism great is also what makes it dangerous. Specifically – the fact that the singular fundamental driving element of the free market is profit. Obviously, what is profitable is good for business. Unfortunately, it seems to be much less obvious to far too many people that what is profitable for the few can be harmful and at times disastrous for the many.

So here we are blindly leaping off the cliff of inevitability with an EMERGENCY government bailout of financial institutions – which probably would not have been needed if it were not for years of Republican resistance to the logical course of carefully planned, deliberate acts of regulation, which has for so long been called for by so many Democrats.

The next time you hear a Republican trying manipulate and mislead you with scary words like Socialism and Communism – remember that this is the text book Republican scare tactic that sold too many of us on all of the reckless deregulation that got us into this mess.

So here’s the reality:
Regulating the free market is not “anti-capitalism” or whatever other anti-American label you want to slap on it. It is simply an obvious measure of common sense that the right-wing McCarthyistic scare machine has steered this country so far away from – that the result has become yet another giant George W Bush leap toward making our government even more like the government of communist China. By successfully accusing the LOGICAL REALISTS of being Socialistic or otherwise "un-American", the Republicans have actually convinced us to run so far and fast in blind fear of the Pacific Ocean that we have drowned in the Atlantic.

The Conventions

Political Conventions give us quite enough blah blah blah, so I’ll nut shell this comment.

Basically it brings me back to that Eleanor Roosevelt quote:

"Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people."

After the Democrats spent the majority of their convention on a positive message, discussing ideas about what can be done for this country, the Republicans spent the majority of their convention on a bitterly negative message discussing people (or to phase it more accurately, distorting people).

So if anything was made clear to me by the conventions it was where each party stands in Eleanor’s observation of Great minds, Average minds and Small minds.

Contrabortion?

Recently in an email, to illustrate his disappointment in us lefties being unable to give credit where it is due, my friend Lloyd listed a pretty extensive pile of positive statistics which he attributed to George Bush. Included in this list was a stat pertaining to a decline in abortions. As with many of the other stats that he listed (and perhaps this validates his point that I’m too reluctant to give credit…) I wonder if this decline in abortions statistic was a result of something that Bush actually did, or was it something which simply happened to occur on his watch.

At any rate, I just heard about something that Mr. Bush is actually doing right now that is almost certain to increase the rate of abortions in this country. Apparently, in the standard conservative tradition of being a part of the problem rather than being a part of the solution, he is quietly trying to redefine abortion to include birth control. Now this has nothing to do with any sort of state funding or other “bigger government” issues that the righties are so paranoid about. In end of the day dollars and sense this is simply a big fat gift from George to the insurance industry. Because under this new rule no insurance company could be expected to cover any form of birth control.

Great idea, you fucking dope. Let’s see… Any time that there is a sweeping reduction of medical insurance coverage a certain percent of citizens simply stop receiving the affected medical service. So in this case it means that less women will use birth control – leading us to the probable result of far more unwanted pregnancies, a certain amount of which will result in the previous definition of ABORTION, you jack ass. Nice going George. You gunna set The White House on fire on your way out the door while you’re at it?

http://pol.moveon.org/contraception/?r_by=-9989962-yJhokQx&rc=mailto

Leadership

Didn’t we invent the light bulb?

…and the telephone?

How ‘bout the computer? Wasn't that us too?

Were we not the first to put a man on the moon?

Remember when the United States of America was the great forward thinking innovative force of the world? It was a time when we truly were, on so many levels, the leaders of the civilized world, with all other countries looking to us for what great things were next to come.

Now a days, under REPUBLICAN “leadership” we have followed the lead of COMMUNIST China – and withdrawn from the Kyoto Protocol, using China’s non-participation as our excuse.

Under REPUBLICAN “leadership” the abolition of our basic American fundamental of habeas corpus has us following the lead of dictators and terrorist régimes – into our current policies of capture and detention.

Under REPUBLICAN “leadership” American automakers have remained dedicated to shackling us to our oil addiction, while Japan has developed (and is now importing to us) a zero emissions hydro fuel cell vehicle.

I could continue to catalogue our spirals into the heart of darkness, but my point is this...

Do we look beyond the smoke and mirrors which keep calling into question the Democratic nominee’s readiness to lead?

Or shall we continue to follow our Republican “leadership” back to the Stone Age?

Monica Binladinsky

So here’s the thing about that old argument about that blow job distracting Bill from his real job.

After two terms of George Dubaya Dipshit at the helm, we’re all pretty well aware of the fact that American Presidents do make their share of errors in judgment. With the world’s greatest intelligence gathering agencies at their command they somehow perhaps suffer from intelligence overload – and make unintelligent choices.

As this was likely the case with Captain Decider on a number of occasions, the same probability affected Bill Clinton. He had intel about terrorist activities and from what average Joe Citizen like you and me can tell – his policy and military command choices failed to recognize the sophistication of the major terrorist organizations and the rapid degree to which their activities were ramping up. None of us really knows what decision Bill could have made at which moment that might have ultimately prevented 9/11. Nor do we really know if there was anything that he could have done to prevent it.

Those are the realities of the matter. The silliness of it is this intellectually primitive line of thought, suggesting that Bill got a BJ rather than make more affective decisions about the threats of terrorism. As if he’s standing in the produce department, choosing between a Gala and a Red Delicious. Hmmm, do I stick it to Binladin or do I stick it in this chubby little intern? So many people seem to truly believe that those particular choices were actually in such close proximity to each other.

Well… umm… actually no. We all know that all Presidents have many complex meetings with their top military and intel advisors who present the President with many difficult choices to make. And when the President makes a military or foreign policy decision, he’s choosing one course of military/foreign policy action over some other course of military/foreign policy action. Not only was Monica not one of the apples to choose from, she was not even and orange. She was not even in the produce department for that matter. She was an impulse item in the check-out line – tossed on the counter – long after all of the real decisions were made about what’s going in the basket.
...

the conversation

I have an ongoing political conversation via email with a good friend of mine who leans to the right. These emails are sometimes driven by what’s on the news or other “information” sources. They are sometimes sparked by comments in this blog. And occasionally entries in this blog are partially derived from those conversations.

Today, editing out personal identifications, I will paste in a bit of recent conversation with – oh, let’s call him Lloyd. No special reason for doing this. I just like the point that made, which was a point that I’ve been meaning to make to a lot of people. So now I will have at least made that point to both of the people who read this blog.

So here it is:

Lloyd said:
LOL fair enough. but i will put this tiny bit of more apples and oranges out there. I'm not saying the investigations are wrong, but 150-300, seems a little much. "i want my phone call...i do...i want it-ta" But one could argue that Bill philandering caused him to take the eye off the ball which was being a president and focusing on national security. Had he paid attention to that, he might have had the good sense to take osama when he openly admits he had the chance in 96 and 98 instead of hoping that foreign governments would do the right thing and capture him for us. You can’t put a price tag on a blow job but not focusing on his job you can put a price tag on, for example, like i do and partially blame him for all of this. "i'm not crazy....i'm not-ta"
"hehehe...hohoho...hahahaha...ooooohhhh......"


Montag said:
In addition to setting the all time presidential record for veto's and a number of other not necessarily good things, Bush has also set the record for presidential vacation time. All presidents have their distractions. Bush's was record breaking vacation time. Clinton’s was infidelity. One is obviously less palatable to the public than the other, but it doesn't mean that the guy getting head was doing his job less than the guy hanging out at a ranch for a good chunk of his presidency (In fact, from what I remember about receiving blow jobs, it's probably the most time efficient method of relieving stress). Hell, the travel time alone to Bush's vacations amounts to more time than Clinton could have spent wagging his thing at interns.

And come on man ("hoping that foreign governments would do the right thing and capture him for us"?), after 9/11 we had by all means the strongest reasons ever and no excuse not to hold onto the reigns and bring back Binladin's head on a pike - but it was Bush and company who handed those reigns to the Afghan army or whoever it was they passed the ball to so that they could hurry up and get us into Iraq while the whole country was still seeing red and didn't care who we struck as long as we were striking someone.

Having his head turned in the wrong direction at the wrong time is probably another presidential record that Bush set, but as I said, all presidents have their distractions. They have the hardest job in the world - they gotta do something to dial down the pressure from time to time. It's just popular to blame bad things on Bill's distraction because his distraction happened to be an act of infidelity, which of course is a socially unacceptable thing that had the whole nation shaking their finger at him - creating a malleable environment to get folks on board when you start pinning blame.

Dude, you're killing me with the joker talk. I can't remember the last time I was so chomping at the bit to see a fucking movie.
I just watched a blip on YouTube of movie goers being interviewed coming out of batman at citywalk. I was disappointed that none of them were you.

Again… Some reality please

Ever since the Democrats took control of congress (narrowly and not so long ago) I keep hearing righties talking about how everything’s the Democrats’ fault…
The Democrats can’t get anything done – this
The Democrats are taking our country in the wrong direction – that
If it weren’t for the Democrats – the other thing
So getting back to that pesky matter of REALITY…

Let’s see:

• In 2001 the Republican President Elect who claimed to be “a uniter not a divider” became an “I’m the decider” partisan dictator of a President. At that time I believe we had a mixed partisan balance in congress.



• Then the Republicans took total control of congress — armed with Mr. “Decider” in The White House. So we truly got to see what the Republicans were interested in and capable of doing for this county.



• Now there is a Democratic majority in congress, dealing with a radically partisan Republican President, who happens to hold the all time presidential Veto record for the history of the Oval Office (In case you're not clear on that point... The Veto tantrums are the main reason that congress can't get much done).

And somehow the Democrats are to blame for the national debt and the price of gas?

…hmm

Seriously!

.
Doesn’t reality matter?

Anyone who observes the facts of matter knows that any newly licensed coastal shelf drilling projects won’t come on line for about a decade. And yet McCain and Bush are selling it as if it is the silver bullet fix for the gas price problem. And as far as I can tell, this no results for ten years off-shore drilling proposal appears to be the crown jewel of McCain’s economic plan. This guy has about a fifty percent chance of becoming the next leader of our nation – and that’s the best that he can come up with?

And they are actually phrasing it as “The relief at the pumps that Americans need now”. Well, yes. We do need relief at the pump now. But what about that 8 to 10 year wait for these new drilling contracts to start producing? Not to mention the fact that a few more drops in the bucket wont stop the oil companies from boning us. They know what they can get away with, so they're going to keep on doing it. The all mighty rule of supply and demand is actually much less mighty than the oil industry's proven ability to do whatever the fuck they want. Wake up folks!

This is just another total rejection of reality, that the right wing has saddled onto and won’t stop riding.
.

Flag Day

What’s the first thing the wolf will do when you catch him dressed in sheep’s clothing?
…Call you a sheep hater.

I have a five year old son who will be starting Kindergarten soon. With that comes the daily morning tradition of reciting the pledge of allegiance. And that’s cool I suppose. In terms of him participating in it goes, I can take it or leave it. I recited the pledge in school and I really don’t think that the act of doing so harmed me in any way, nor do I believe for a second that reciting the pledge made me a better American than someone who may have opted out of that activity.

What does concern me though, in a general sense, is a young child’s limited ability to fully grasp the weight of the words. To put your hand over your heart and “pledge” your “allegiance” to something…
That’s pretty fuckin heavy. And to have a young child do something like that without at least trying to give them a deeper understanding of what that means and what they are pledging their allegiance to — seems to be a rather un-American conditioning of blind faith which is being thrust upon our children.

Again, I am not against the idea of my children participating in the pledge of allegiance. But I am by all means going to do my best to not only give them a clear understanding of what it means to “pledge” your “allegiance” to something; but also make sure they know what they are pledging their allegiance to. And that it is their choice to make. That even as children, there exist certain things which are exclusively and wholly owned by them. Things like:

Your personal opinion

Your taste

Your feelings toward others

And by God your “allegiance” to something…

These are all things that are yours and only yours to determine for yourself, regardless of your age. To suggest otherwise would be un-American.

And that brings forward another point which I intend to make very clear to my children. Far too many gross misinterpretations of “Americanism” seem to get wrapped in the flag. There is no qualification required to get a flag. It can be attached to anything by anyone. So it’s pretty important for our children and all of us for that matter to remain aware of the fact that a person or thing does not necessarily represent true American values simply because they are dressed in the flag. This is a very important point to me personally, because as an American, I am genuinely offended and embarrassed by the right wing’s relative success at making patriotism synonymous with war mongering. Reasonable forward thinking realists whom have clear sight of the true and very positive meaning of patriotism need to take the flag back from extreme right wing fundamentalist before the stains of what those extremists represent blot out what it represents.

“When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross.”

— Sinclair Lewis, The first American writer, to win the Nobel Prize for Literature

.

Assuming you’re right…

I was recently having a casual chat with a guy when the subject of current gasoline prices came up in the conversation. This gentlemen went on to very clearly and sincerely express his opinion that it is the environmentalists who are to blame for the price of gas. If only they would stop preventing us from more offshore drilling - and drilling in Alaska…

This guy really thinks that this would be the solution. And it’s not the first time that I’ve heard talk like that. More than a couple of people actually do think that way. Perhaps even you. If so, let us assume that you are right.

Let’s say that everything in Al Gore’s little slide show is absolute fiction – an elaborate hoax on all of us.

Let’s say that there truly is no need to stop polluting the Earth’s atmosphere.

Let's say that nothing stood between the oil companies and every last drop of oil under American soil and territories.

Now, let’s say that we got all of that oil tomorrow – every last drop…

That’s gunna be great! Just like the way that Iraqi oil has paid for the war.…

Oh yeah, I guess it didn’t quite work out that way. Right... The war has actually cost us over a trillion dollars and that Iraqi oil which was supposed to pay for the occupation has well I’m not sure what happened to it, but I keep hearing about the oil companies having record profit quarters. In fact, somehow, regardless of up down forward or backward, every condition of the oil markets and geopolitical events seem to somehow result in higher gas prices for us and record profits for oil companies.

But I guess that’s all going to change now. Tapping all available U.S. oil resources must be the magic event that the oil corporations have been waiting for. This will be the thing which will make those CEOs, Chairmen and board members just stop in their tracks, look at each other and say “Okay fellas… The party’s over. Enough of all this raking in billions of dollars… Let’s dial back gas prices to about a buck eighty a gallon.”

Hmmm… Yeah…

Yep. I’m pretty sure that that’s pretty much how it’s going to go down.

Or reality could happen.
...

PROOF! “The Earth Is Flat!”

The other day at work, a guy said something about the weather… Another guy responded with the phrase: “Global warming”… A third guy said: “Bullshit! ...Shifts in the climate are a natural occurrence that’s been going on for eons.”

I stayed out of it, but apparently I’m still thinking about it. When you’re of moderate wit, as I am, you tend to spend some of your time thinking about things that you might have interjected into conversations had you been someone of quicker wit.

In this case, I might have said something along the lines of this…

Yes! It is an empirical fact of science that shifts in the global climate have been occurring naturally for eons. It is also a fact that most people who have died of lung cancer have had a genetic predisposition to developing cancer. Hence the insurance company’s questions about your family history of diseases like cancer. But is this fact of genetic predisposition “proof” that the human body is impervious to cigarette smoke? Probably not.

In fact, smoking cigarettes is probably a trigger and definitely an extreme accelerant for one’s predisposition to developing lung cancer. To believe otherwise would be a thorough and absolute dedication to a level of closed minded denial which could only be equaled by the absurd suggestion that the facts about natural climate change can somehow act as proof that the balance of the Earth’s ecosystem is impervious to industrial pollution, mass deforestation and a myriad of other human activities which do in fact have a radical impact on various critical areas of the global ecosystem, driving a very real domino effect that is headed toward unstoppability.

Or perhaps the Earth is flat.

What’s the differencism?

If you’re of the mindset that it is “anti-American” or simply un-American for someone to find imperfections in capitalism; I’d ask you if you have ever asked yourself why you feel that way. And if capitalism is indeed so absolutely synonymous with Americanism; are we so arrogant as to believe that our system is one of total flawlessness which can never be improved upon? Is it an act of patriotic treason to have a look at what elements of capitalism may be shooting us in the foot as a society? Is it national sin to blend in some solutions which may happen to be more socialistic than capitalistic? And if so, why? Why not ignore the labels just long enough to build a hybrid model of a new and better system?

The other day my wife told me that she saw a bumper sticker which read: Liberalism – Socialism – Communism – What’s the difference? Now, a statement/question like that is what it is. And these cases of imbeciles trying to pass off the debilitating degree of their ignorance as clever wit is not an exclusive trait of the right wing. I have little doubt that there is some small minded lefty out there sporting a sticker that reads: Conservatism – Fascism – Nazism – What’s the difference? Both the liberal jab and the conservative jab are simply two sides of the same coin of glorified ignorance.

All of these isms – snapshot generalized labels for caricatures of ideologies... So few of us can be accurately defined by any of these isms, yet we treat them as potential absolute definitions of our society. It’s this whole “gateway drug” mentality that keeps far too many people in senseless fear of a fantasized imminent arrival at the extreme end of the purest form of whichever ideology opposes one’s basic ideals.

To put it plainly, it’s just stupid to oppose a ban on elective late term abortions if your argument is wholly based on your fear that it’s going to open the flood gates and lead to the overturning of Roe v Wade. Come on. The slope is simply not that slippery. If Republicans wanted to overturn Roe v Wade they would have done it a few years ago when they had total control of the federal government. Since the issue it self is of more value to them than the end result, Row v Wade will be alive and well for as long as Republicans count on getting votes from the religious right. And honestly – in my opinion, barring some extreme circumstances, if you wait until your third trimester to decide to have an abortion, the law should at least mandate that your womb be extracted with the fetus. Because you are clearly so irresponsible – that for you to ever spawn a new member of our species would actually set back the course of evolution.

I will also point out that it is completely fucking retarded to oppose a ban on assault rifles based on your asinine fear that it would be the first step toward overturning the second amendment. When Charlton Hesston died no one pounced on his corpse to pry that riffle from his “cold dead hand”. This is because the gun control people are actually not at all interested in taking sports rifles from sportsmen. They really aren’t. It’s just a paranoid fantasy in your narrow mind. So shut the fuck up. Or at least pull that rifle out of your cold tight ass – just long enough to stop missing the point.

In case you’re not clear on what the point is – the point is the real “F” word. Fear. Fear is the root of all evil. Because fear is the most common, consistent and reliable motivator for most of the evil deeds done throughout history and to this day. The most persistent obstacle to reason, logic, progress and solutions has always been nothing but a blind and base reaction to various irrational fears.

If you can face your fear and rather than blindly reacting to it, see it for the illogical non-reality that it is, then you should be able to see far enough beyond the isms to become a part of the solution.

The only constructive ism is realism.

"Truth"

The politifact.com truth-o-meter recently ruled FALSE on a quote by a religious right extremist organization called Focus on the Family Action, which read, "[Barack Obama] supports hate-crimes expansion ... potentially putting churches at risk if they preach the truth about homosexuality."

What interests me about this is that word truth. It brings up an important point about the arrogant self-righteousness of the religious right.

Everyone has seen the chrome painted plastic symbols attached to the backs of cars, which are shaped like a fish (as a symbol of Jesus). Some of them say Jesus. Some have feet and say Darwin. My wife once had one that was designed to look like a UFO and it said Alien. And then there is the one that has a little fish that says Darwin getting swallowed by a big fish that says Truth.

There’s that word again. Truth is a very powerful word that says a lot about someone who chooses to use it in reference to their opinion about something. The truth about the word truth is that it suggests rather strongly that the opposing opinion is not just inaccurate but actually a lie. By categorizing your belief as “the truth” you are claiming that those who openly oppose your belief actually share your belief but are attempting to mislead people about something which they know to be fact.

I just couldn’t imagine taking a position like that. I’m clearly an opinionated person. But the idea of actually branding my opinion as “the truth” and there by branding opposing opinions as lies…
It just strikes me as an exclusive characteristic of tragically closed minded self-righteous extremists. I mean, wow. It must be nice to be so right. At least it seems to be pretty convenient.

The truth about this matter is that it is just another frightening similarity between Christian extremists and Muslim extremists.

8 girls, 1 cup

By now, if you have a computer and or a television, you’ve seen something about the 8 high school girls who trapped and brutally assaulted one of their classmates in Florida, while videotaping the event for the purpose of Myspace and YouTube broadcasts.

I actually hesitated to post comments about this because I don’t want to add to their glory. Whatever their punishment winds up being; it will inevitably vanish in the shadow of the fame which they’re enjoying. As a much lesser level of exposure/fame was the clear objective of this video – despite the trouble that they’re in, they have got to be feeling like they’ve hit the jack pot. The girl throwing most of the punches probably thinks that she has now become some sort of Squeaky Fromme version of Paris Hilton. Ok… assuming that she’s heard of the Manson family. I know it’s a stretch.

Anyhow, a lot of people are wondering what would cause such horrific behavior. Allow me to be the first to blame it on Florida. I’m not kidding. I believe that the society of that state impresses its children with a lower standard of human conduct. Florida is most widely known for its popularity as a destination for spring break kids and retiring adults. But it is also known for its distinctive popularity among those who are simply trying to escape from the burden of society’s expectations of ethical behavior.

Florida has long since been America’s favorite destination for those seeking amnesty from accountability for their actions. The Florida board of tourism might as well advertise that it’s the place to go if all the damn little people are still failing to realize that the rules just don’t apply to you.

If you have trouble finding the right loophole for your tax, criminal or political problem, Florida seems to be the place to go. It’s the place where you go to comfortably live out your life after being acquitted of a double murder that everyone on Earth knows that you’re guilty of. And it’s where a well connected incompetent narcissist can go to be handed the Presidency of the United States.

Now, I am not by any means saying that the behavior of those girls can be wholly attributed to any single factor. This sort of thing can be categorized by a number of factors which are common enough to have their own clichés:
Kids are cruel
Girls are mean
Violence in movies, TV, video games and the internet has desensitized this generation to violent behavior.
And the timeless classic… People in Florida are fucked up.

the American Dream

The price of gas just reached another all time high. Where I live it’s hard to find octane 89 for less than $4.00 per gallon. In direct spending, the Iraq war has cost around $500 billion. Even the conservative projections see the long term cost exceeding a trillion dollars. We’ve lost the lives of over 4 thousand American soldiers. In a twisted effort to justify this immeasurable mistake, Bush is willing to sacrifice as many more soldiers as he can before leaving office. And the other day I saw a bumper sticker on a car (which was riddled with other right wing agenda stickers) which read Freedom isn’t free.

Now, I understand the point they’re trying to make with that. Never mind the fact that Iraq has NEVER been any kind of threat to our freedom — nor did they have anything to do with 9/11. But what the statement on that sticker really makes me wonder about is; does the person in that car think about that statement in a broader sense? Do they consider that overall it does in fact cost something to live in this country? And, logically so… It’s a gigantic country with what is likely the largest, most complex and efficient infrastructure of any country on earth. America quite literally is the land of opportunity and it’s a privilege to live here. Those of us who were born here tend to be the first to forget that fact. Far too many of us seem to have this completely unrealistic sense of entitlement. There’s no humility or gratitude left in the American Dream. — I want my milk and honey, on my street paved of gold! And God Damn You if you dare to TAX me for any of it!!!

You can see it on every level. In the office where I work I can overhear the phone calls of the customer service desk. The most consistent thing that I’ve observed about the complaint calls is that most people want to receive and use the product but they don’t want to pay for it.

I feel fortunate, grateful and privileged to live in America. But not so proud of it. Recent generations of Americans have done little to keep America living up to what it once was. As a nation, we find excuses to ignore environmental issues and we find excuses to condone torture. America used to have the moral fortitude to at least try to step up and set the higher standard. We've gone from being a truly respectable world leader to being an arrogant bully.

We have a long way to go, on a whole lot of levels. But as individual Americans, a nice start would be to see the American Dream rise above this arrogant belief that we’re entitled to something for nothing.

For the record

I'm a big fan of Jesus Christ.

This is a fact which is held true by my ability to distinguish some quite distinctive differences between Christ and Christianity.





"If Christ were here
   there is one thing he would not be — a Christian."


      —Mark Twain

“Godless” coins?

About this One Dollar piece
that lacks the phrase In God We Trust...

In a recent post I had my little Church and State rant, but I don’t mind touching on it again. Particularly in a case like this that is not so black and white. You could say that I have mixed feelings on the matter, but I’d categorize it as one of my "line item" evaluations of a not so simple issue.

Here’s the thing. The lack of separation of church and state is the principal cause of most of the conflict in the world, throughout history and to this day. Period. I am a very strong advocate of the enforcement of our constitutional separation of church and state. Yet, I am more passionate about the importance of not blaming God for religion. People make religions. Not God. That is why so many religions cause so many problems in the world.

So, I am neither offended by the idea of removing that phrase from our money, nor am I bothered by In God We Trust continuing to be printed on our money. I am truly indifferent to it, and think that anyone who is deeply invested in this issue on one side or the other is just being silly.

Currency is currency. It serves a practical purpose and is no more or less valid or valuable with or without a phrase about God printed on it. On the other hand, in terms of the concept of attaching any particular religion (church) to the state, the word God is actually ambiguous. All religions have a God or some Gods or some kind of deity that can in some way be legitimately referred to as their “God”. Hence, the use of the word God does not endorse one religion (church) or another; therefore it does not violate separation of church and state. So until they try to print In Jesus We Trust on American currency, this is a non-issue. In the mean time, I’d suggest diverting your energy to something that matters.

For the record

Fuck Nader

keeping score

Here’s a little snap shot — that sort of demonstrates how deeply out of touch the right-wing extremists are with the rest of America.

• On that persistent right-wing gutter politics effort to convince voters that Obama has connections to Muslim extremists; the most right-wing politician serving in Congress just made himself the poster boy of that smear campaign.



• John McCain keeps “waving the white flag” by telling the world that this great nation has been brought to it's knees and should be terrorized into voting for him.



• Since George Bush lost his Republican Congress and found out that he is no longer Dictator Bush, he’s been like a child having a tantrum with his veto stamp. His latest cast of that stamp told the world that the United State of America condones torture.



• Meanwhile, yesterday the Illinois congressional seat that was previously held by Dennis Hastert — the longest-serving Republican speaker in the history of the House — was won by a Democrat.

As some American politicians continue to tell the world that we are shallow, weak, and in shameless lack of a moral compass; the American voters have an entirely different message.
It would seem that "hope" is alive and well in America.

Reconstituted

I am continually astonished by how the masses seem to either turn a blind eye to or buy into such blatantly hypocritical deceptions. It seriously just blows my mind. These things seem to be so clear and simple — and yet, so many are oblivious to it. This government was in fact created “of the people and for the people”, with a constitution designed to protect the rights of the American citizens: meaning individuals. In other words, the constitution is for the people! Somehow, it seems that far too many ‘people’ are thoughtlessly willing to surrender this protection. Not only to yield, but to go so far as to transfer these rights from the body of individual citizens to the lawyers of corporate giants. It is as if David were to humbly surrender his slingshot and stone at the feet of Goliath.

Corporate lawyers, executives and a variety of other greed blinded people seem to suffer from such tunnel vision on the “what do I get out of it” aspect of everything, that they chronically fail to recognise that many things are designed for the benefit of the general public; not just the ruling class or your special interest group. For example let’s look at the original purpose of Separation of Church and State, and how it is so grossly twisted and misinterpreted.

It’s very simple. Freedom of religion. Freedom from religious persecution. The right to practice a religion of your choice: even if your religion is perceived to be outside of the mainstream. It is a law of the people, by the people to protect the people from being told by their government that any particular religious doctrines are the official doctrine of the state; and thus isolating other religions from acceptance. No one should be persecuted, ostracised or otherwise shunned for having a less than conventional spiritual path. That is the reason for separation of church and state.

But the conservatives have warped this. They paint advocates of the Constitutional Separation of Church and State as being “anti-God”. It seems that they would have that part of the constitution abolished, provided that the Christian Judea flavors of Church were the only ones allowed to commingle with State. But what is most troubling about this to me is that part where they portray separation of church and state as an attack on God. Here’s the news flash, Righty… The whole point of separation of church and state is the fact that there are many religions and spiritual philosophies. They all involve belief in some sort of Deity – just not necessarily your God. But just as you arrogant conservatives seem to believe that you own patriotism, you also think you own the word God. I’m pleased to be the one to tell you — The word God is rightfully used in reference to the “supreme beings” believed in by people of many other spiritual mindsets. You see, that wrathful God that you worship/fear… the one that supposedly hates fags… well, it may be the meanest God on the block, but in this country it does not own the block. Because our Constitutional Separation of Church and State says that my God has an equal place at the table. That’s the reality of it. That's what separates us from places like Iraq and Iran. The reality is that separation of church and state is very pro-God.
It's pro-everyone’s-God.

And while we’re on the subject, please stop imposing characters from your religion onto other people’s religions. In the self-righteous glory of your narcissistic ignorance, you righties seem determined to characterize all Pagans as “Satan Worshipers”. Well here’s some more information which I will turn sideways in hopes that I might squeeze it into your narrow mind; now focus: Satan is a character from YOUR book. Most Pagans don’t even believe in the existence of any such character, therefore it is not likely that they are worshiping it. Really. To most pagans, Satan is nothing more than a cartoon character. The Satan that you believe in is all yours. So do the rest of us a favor and keep him to yourself.

Now, to finally get to the point of this rant. On the news this morning, I heard a report about a legal case, in which a corporate restaurant chain is fighting compliance with ingredients disclosure regulations. Regulations which are designed to protect the health of you, me and our children. The lawyers representing this corporation are calling it a violation of their client’s constitutional freedom of speech rights. They argue that by being forced to post a list of ingredients, their client (a corporation, not an individual) is being forced to speak, thereby having their rights violated.

So here is an other classic example of a constitutional amendment, which was created to protect people, being hijacked by a corporate lawyer to empower a corporation to potentially harm people. Can’t you see it? They are not only rubbing salt in your wounds – but it’s your fucking salt!

I will stop flogging that horse when it is actually dead

Again, reality matters.

Regarding the 9-11 attacks. All of the empirical data that most sane people who don’t live in caves agree upon tells us that we were attacked by a (non-national) independent terrorist group based in Afghanistan.

In the real world realm of reality, the real evidence supports the FACT that we were NOT attacked by Iraq. No evidence has ever existed to support the idea that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with the 9-11 attacks.

Contrary to what so many right-wing lunatics would have us believe, Bin Ladin and Hussein are not the same person. This has got to be the most wide spread case of mass delusion in the history of our species. I can’t remember the number but I remember my horrifying feeling of astonishment when I heard the statistic of how many Americans actually believe that on 9/11 we were attacked by Iraq.

This is perhaps the most relentless, full blown, nation wide rejection of reality in American history. Hundreds of thousands of Fox News fans looking at the moon and insisting that it is the sun. And this disdain for what is factual is by no means limited to ignorant hicks. Very well educated presidential candidates also seem to be afflicted with this inability to accept what is real.

During the last republican debate, Mitt Romney’s remarks about President Bush’s Iraq policy started with comments about the 9-11 attacks. He very blatantly and directly related 9-11 to the Iraq war, referring to our invasion of Iraq as a message to terrorists that if you attack us we will respond.

Hey Mitt! Got a little secret for you… Since you’re running for president and all – and you should like, know stuff… Iraq has never attacked the US. I know that you’re a republican. So you have fun making your little wise cracks against democrats by deliberately confusing Barak Obama's name with Osama Bin Ladin's… Yeah, that was pretty cute Mitt. Come up with that one all by your self? Anyhow, that’s all fun and games. But you really should know the difference between Osama Bin Ladin and Saddam Hussein. Bin Ladin is the one who was actually responsible for 9-11… Husain is the one who had nothing to do with it. Nor did he have WMD. Don’t get me wrong. Saddam Hussein was a serious fucking asshole. And he did need to go. But not at the cost of the lives of THOUSANDS of American soldiers and nearly a TRILLION DOLLARS of debt, which may contribute to the devastation of the American and global economy.

Really! Let’s put these matters on the scale.

Like many tyrants around the world, Saddam Hussein was guilty of human rights atrocities and other really bad stuff.

Now look at the cost of going after him.

• We let Osama Bin Ladin get away


• We annihilated every infrastructure of Iraq


• We turned Iraq into the official global mecca for anti-American terror groups


• We had the power and support of the free world totally behind us after 9-11. It was a massive world-wide spike in pro-Americanism. Until with our unilateral determination to invade Iraq we told the rest of the world to fuck off.


• We sacrificed THOUSANDS of American soldiers.


• We’ve created a national debt that is devastating our economy, while it turns China into the next superpower.


• And did I mention that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11


• And Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11


• And the list goes on.

So, when comparing the horrible deeds of Saddam Hussein to the horrible deeds of George W. Bush – I can say with absolute certainty, that despite the fact that Saddam Hussein was one of the most sadistic mother fuckers running a country, if bringing that piece of shit back from the grave would be the price to pay for erasing George W. Bush from ever existing, the world would be a much better place.

Some Republicans ARE capable of embracing logic

...if only for a moment

Last night when Anderson Cooper asked Mitt Romney to respond to John McCain’s comments about Romney’s tendency to change positions on certain issues, Mitt gave the answer that I’ve been waiting so long to hear from any politician. He said (I paraphrase) that someone who can’t learn from their experience should be fired. That if you can’t assimilate new information and reevaluate your position on important matters that you are not qualified to lead.

Thank God, someone has finally said it. Too bad no one said it when everyone was calling John Kerry a “flip flopper”. And I hope that while Mitt Romney made that profound statement that at least a few Dubbaya fans out there realized the tragedy of the FULL STEAM AHEAD!!! NO MATTER WHAT!!! Bush arrogance.

For a number of reasons, I certainly do not endorse Romney. But I hope that whoever does get in the White House next will have the sense of logic to understand this very basic concept. The concept being that early assessments of complex situations are often proved to be the wrong course of action. And by failing to understand this and react to it is arrogant, reckless and incompetent.

Though it is redundant to mention, I'll say it: Those are the three words which best describe our sitting President.

Now, let’s talk about abortion.

I don’t think that there is any subject in which the conservatives are more egregiously missing and misrepresenting the point of their opposition. And it’s not just the “Pro-Life” crowd who’s missing the point. The media is equally guilty of drawing an inaccurate picture of what the argument actually is.

The argument is not whether or not abortion is a good thing to do. Whether or not it’s acceptable in extreme cases is a separate matter of varying opinions. But generally speaking, no one who isn’t mentally and morally sick thinks that abortion is an acceptable means of casual birth control. As no one in their right mind thinks that abortion is in any way a casual matter — or feels that its generally okay to do. An equal amount of people on the left and the right basically believe that abortion is a tragic thing.

So the first thing we need to clear up is: what are we’re debating? It’s not a battle of people in favor of abortion vs. people against abortion. The reality is that on some level, we are all against abortion. That’s not the argument.

This argument is the flagship example of the conservatives' disconnection from reality. Again and again; up and down so many issues; their relentless denial of reality is only equaled by what appears to be the high level of personal offence that they take when faced with reality. This truly and simply is the argument against the right-wing's relentless rejections of reality — and the fact that their renunciation of reality is largely the original cause of so many of the problems we debate . The reality of prohibition was that it just created illegal activity and violence. People were going to get their booze, regardless of the law. So we had to face the fact that the subject of alcoholic beverages in America was a matter of realistic regulation, not prohibition.

Without regard to your impervious rejection of reality, it is possible, perhaps likely that your child will become sexually active during their high school years, if not earlier. And if by the recklessness of your will, your child has been convinced that abstinence is the only form of birth control, you very well may be the cause of an unwanted pregnancy.

I know you righties hate science, but here's an interesting fact of science for you. The physical development of a person's brain has not completed until the age of 22. This may in part explain the fact that young scared girls make decisions based on their fear — driven by their mental and emotional immaturity. It’s a reality of youth that you can't preach out of them. This is a large part of the reason that a law against abortion did not prevent abortion from happening during the time that it was outlawed in this country. Despite the law, abortions continued to happen — but without the presence of any sort of medial professional or proper equipment. Everyone has heard the coat hanger horrors — that would so often result not only in the death of the fetus but also in the death of the young pregnant woman.

Now it may be your position that if a girl chooses to perform a “bathroom or back alley abortion” that she deserves whatever physical complication may befall her. Okay. But that’s a different argument, isn’t it? This is my point. Let’s be clear and honest about what we are debating. It’s not “baby killers” vs. “baby savers”, as the conservatives would like everyone to believe. If you’re against abortion, that’s great. So am I. Borrow my ladder and shout it from the roof tops. Get active. Promote more education and positive realistic guidance. Choose from many things that can be done that accomplish so much more than creating a law that is sure to be tragically ignored. Do something. But please think thoroughly about the real life effect of laws in our society before you bring your conviction into the argument of whether or not to outlaw something that so many young women and girls will find a way to do regardless of the law.

This is the real debate:

Practical and fearless education, Realistic prevention, and Responsible safe regulation

vs.

An ideology that rejects the reality of the fact that preaching abstinence is not teaching birth control. An ideology which also rejects the reality; that under a law against abortion many young women would perform hazardous and lethal home abortions. It may also be the position of this ideology that any girl or woman willing to perform a home abortion deserves to die.

And if that final point is their position, I’m not judging them for it. I’m simply trying to present a more accurate picture of this argument. It’s an argument about a potential LAW and what the real life effect of that law would be. Everyone is to some degree against abortion. So the argument is not one of for or against abortion. The argument is for or against a law that would cause more pain and suffering than it would prevent.

Let’s talk about “Small Government”

and "Big Government" for that matter.

When politicians talk about big government and small government, what are they really referring to? Think about this deeply. In the practical cause and effect sense of the matter, what is the negative impact of large government or the advantage of smaller government?

Money must be at the top of the list. New bureaus and larger more complex government agencies cost money to support, right? So that must be a big part of it.

And then there’s the matter of living in the land of the free, we don’t want the government telling us what to do. We’re grown-ups in a free society. We can make our own decisions.

There are probably a few more but I’m guessing that Money and Freedom are the two main points of the Size of the Government Issue.

Okay, so first let’s look at the matter of government spending. The Democrats believe that as the wealthiest most powerful nation on Earth, we have a moral obligation to do something about our national poverty rate and things of that nature. This means social programs.

The Republicans believe that corporate and military might are the answers to all our problems so they say “privatize”. They say “we want smaller government. Replace government agencies with private companies.” Here’s where the republican delusion comes in. First, they put this idea in your head that Democrats want to “Socialize” everything. It’s like McCarthyism all over again. It truly is textbook Right-Wing Rule by Fear tactics. It hasn’t changed since the dark ages. Obviously because it still works (in favor of the rulers). Meanwhile, back in reality, the Democrats actually don’t want to “Socialize” everything. They are simply realistic about the facts of business. The purpose of business is profit. Business answers to profit first – morals later – much later and only if it is very convenient. This is not a judgment about business. It is simply a reality. Now the republicans say privatize everything. Well, the thing is that many very important issues in our society need services that are not necessarily so profitable. The organizations providing such services would need to have a mission based priority rather than a profit priority. So in a perfect republican world, these services would only exist if private businesses could afford to forgo profit. Therefore, they would simply not exist. Of course, rampant disease and a massive increase in crime would be the result of the republican’s perfect world – so we would have to spend billions more dollars on law enforcement, jails, prisons and hospitals. Wait a minute… turning our backs on nearly half of the nation was supposed to reduce the size of the government. Well, that’s the little hiccup in convenient republican plans. The positive effects only last long enough to get votes for republicans. And then reality happens. The fact is that investing in our nation is actually much cheaper than turning our backs on it.

Assuming that nightmare doesn’t happen, let’s look at things that the republicans spend money on now. Like the $8 Billion a month war. Even when that war ends – if republicans had their way they’d get us straight into another war. Ask yourself: How many democrat sponsored domestic social programs cost the American tax payers EIGHT BILLION DOLLARS A MONTH? And it’s not just war. All of the republican tax breaks for corporations and wealthy individuals… Who pays for that? Yeah, the vast majority of American tax payers.
You see, when it comes to government agency spending, the republicans want BIGGER government than the democrats. The main difference is that the republicans think the money needs to go to corporations and wealthy individuals, while democrats want money spent to help the majority of people in this nation. Which would make us a collectively stronger nation as a whole. It’s just a matter of convenient labeling. When republicans spend money they scare you into believing that it’s just “the price of freedom”. When democrats spend less money, republicans cry “Big Government”.

Speaking of hypocrisy, let’s move on to that issue of the government encroaching on our personal liberties. You’ll notice that there are all kinds of activists who publicly demonstrate. Some on the left and some on the right. And if you look at the objectives of these demonstrations, you will notice distinctive consistencies. When left wing activists engage in a public demonstration, their objective is usually to gain personal liberties, rights or fair treatment for themselves or a group of people. You will also notice that when right wing activists demonstrate publicly, they are usually organized with the objective to restrict or revoke the personal liberties, rights or fair treatment of some person or group of people.

So, Big Government… Righty’s afraid that Big Government is trying to tell him what to do. Trying to stomp out the 2nd amendment. Tryin’ to take my guns. Well, that is very far from any possible reality. I challenge anyone to find any proposed form of legislation that is intended to deny law abiding Americans the right to bear arms. Some folks just think that it makes sense to prevent criminals from having more powerful weapons than police. Call me crazy… But that seems to make sense. So no one is trying to take your rights from you. They are just trying to give the nice policeman a slight advantage when he’s trying to save your child from a schoolyard shooting.

Meanwhile Righty wants the government to tap our phone lines and tell us who we’re allowed to love.

Overall, it appears that in realm of practical cause and effect reality, it is the republicans who are far guiltier of bringing about a “Big Government” economic impact on our nation as well as a “Big Government / Big Brother” encroachment on our personal liberties. As usual, when you look beyond the smokescreen of the Republican catch phrase you find that they are actually the hypocritical perpetrators of what they accuse the Democrats of.

Democrats want to give tax breaks

To the people! The majority of the people. As opposed to the republican philosophy that tax cuts are just for corporations and wealthy people.

Washington is largely in bipartisan agreement that some sort of tax relief should be a part of the solution to the current problems facing our economy. It’s great to see them mostly agree on something.

Of course, the devil’s in the details. So let’s look at the basics of the differences.The democrats propose plans that would provide tax relief for middle to lower income Americans. Meaning most Americans. Some republicans are in favor of this as well. But naturally, the more conservative republicans in congress (meaning a lot of them) believe that the economy would be better served by giving these tax breaks to corporations, rather than citizens.

Now, its one thing if that is simply their opinion based on sound advice from a diverse pool of independent expert economists. But I heard one of these congressmen on the radio the other day, and it sounds like it’s just another ill-advised republican maneuver that protects Corporate America at the expense of American Citizens.

You know how republicans like to wrap complex issues into little catch phrases that have nothing to do with the practical reality of the matter…

Well here’s how this congressman wrapped up this one. He said that he’d like to see that tax relief go into paychecks rather than welfare checks. Clever little catch phrase. Now let’s examine how disconnected from reality it is. First, he’s suggesting that out of the generosity of the corporate heart, tax breaks for corporations would result in more or larger paychecks for workers. That really is what he's suggesting. The second part of his handy little catch phrase labels tax relief for the non-wealthy as being nothing but welfare. His words… He actually called it welfare.

On the first point, let’s look at the history of corporate behavior during hard times. What is the first thing that corporations do when they get nervous? Do they examine the possibility that they may be top heavy at the executive level? Not so much. Do the highest paid executives bite the bullet and take a little pay cut for the greater good? Heavens no. Why get crazy, when you can just lay off a large part of the work force. Sure, all the families of the laid off workers suffer and middle management has to work a lot harder to keep the wheels turning, but they don’t need to see their families. Right? Not to mention the hits that local economies take when a bunch of people get laid off. And when you’re listening to financial news shows, and you hear about a big corporation having a profitable quarter — is it followed by news of how those profits were put into bigger or more paychecks for workers ? No. In fact news like that is often accompanied by reports about raises and massive bonuses for the top executive of the company. And that’s fine. The people making the big decisions should be compensated for good results.

But please! You republican congressmen really need to stop assuming that Americans are so stupid that they would actually believe that tax breaks for corporations will result in bigger or more paychecks for the working class. You're selling a fantasy to people who are not as delusional as you are. This idea that a company's surplus revenue will trickle down the corporate stream into the pockets of it's worker is quite unfortunately, a non-reality. It's simply not the nature of business. It's like the story of the fox and scorpion.

As for the point made in the second part of the congressman's cute little catch phrase — the part where he refers to tax breaks for working Americans as “welfare”… Well, that is such a flagrantly arrogant and condescending insult to the majority of Americans — that it really speaks for its self and I need not say more.

still optimistic... still wrong.

I just heard President Bush throwing around the word “optimistic” again. The republicans love wearing the badge of “Optimism”. It’s been a very convenient and effective method of selling their multi-issue rejection of reality.

When a progressive promotes the acceptance or implementation of reality, he is swiftly labeled “Pessimist”.

When an unrealistic (aka: “optimistic”) republican plan fails, they blame it on the pessimistic resistance of uncooperative lefties. While the reality of the matter is that their unrealistic plan slammed into the brick wall of REALITY.


To make sure you righties believe me about the empirical concrete nature of REALITY, I’ve pasted in the first paragraph of reality’s definition from Conservapedia:


Reality is something that is really true. Reality is mind-independent, i.e. reality would continue to be the case whether or not anyone believed it, or indeed whether or not there were any minds to believe it in the first place.


So there you have it! Even the conservative web site that largely exists for the purpose of renouncing reality, admits that Reality is not a synonym for pessimism.

Think about that the next time that you’re about to cram your rejection of reality into the costume of “optimism”.

Real Lies vs Real Skeletons

It seems that at least twice a week I hear someone make wise cracks about Barack Obama’s name. Yes very clever… Barack Osama. And it seems that just as often I hear news reports about the relentless fabrications about Obama’s supposed Muslim background. Every time someone tries to start one of these rumors, it is immediately revealed (by responsible members of the press) to be an absolute fabrication. But that doesn’t stop them. These people are in love with the idea of trying to get people to believe this lie. It's actually because of these people that everyone is now so aware of the fact that Barack Obama was baptized Protestant and never had any ties to radical Muslims. And despite the rampant global knowledge of the truth about Obama, these people remain relentless in there quest to spread the lie.

It would have been interesting if people had attacked George W in such a way, back when he was first running. At least they would have some legitimate ammunition. Considering the fact that the Grandfather of our sitting president was practically a member of the Nazi party. Not figuratively. Prescott Bush actually was an active partner and share holder in major companies that greatly aided and greatly profited from the Nazi war machine. It’s just one of the uglier skeletons in the Bush family closet. Dandy little gem in American history. I didn’t notice anyone use it against dubbaya during his campaign years. But if they had played that dirty, at least they would have been armed with truth.

Coincidence and Convenience

“President” Pervez Musharraf is supposedly an ally to our nation against terrorism. That sounds nice but I wonder about what details of that relationship we’re not privy to. I wonder if the negative aspects of those details may radically outweigh this assumed Musharraf anti-terrorism prowess. It does seem to be an interesting coincidence that a couple of Presidents, whom have both achieved the office of Presidency by questionable means, have now become so chummy.

And then there is Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda is very real. They do really bad things. But it may have become just a bit too convenient for shady fuckers like Musharraf and Bush to blame Al-Qaeda for incidents which they’d prefer not to explain truthfully. You know… Things like the Bhutto Assassination. Or perhaps it was just a very convenient coincidence that Al-Qaeda came along to pull that Bhutto thorn out of Musharraf’s side. Not sure if Al-Qaeda likes him enough to do him that favor...Hmm. At any rate, Musharraf appears to have the resources to handle tasks like that for himself. But if he did need the favor, he’d probably go to someone he was more chummy with.