Know your audience!

Before I begin, I wanted to say 'hello' to all of you who visit this site. You may have seen my name in the comment board once in a while. As it turns out, the Angry Midget got tired of my posting there, and tried to ban me from his blog. However, he did not know that I have 1337 Haxxor skills, and cracked the 15,809 bit encryption on his page, so I now can post entire topics here (Cue evil laugh ... muwhahahahaha)! When I feel like ranting, I'm going to hack in and post, and there's nothing Ryan or any of his angry midget pirate army can do about it!

So for my first rant, I want to talk about the woman who got kicked off of a Southwest flight for wearing a t-shirt with a picture of Bush and Cheney on it that said 'Meet the Fuckers.' Message boards are already lighting up about this, but for political reasons, like, "Southwest are a bunch of fascists!" Folks, let's get something straight. This was not done for political reasons. Take the picture of the president and the vice president off of it, and it's just a t-shirt with a swear word. If you're going to go into a public place wearing a shirt with an obscenity on it, you're running the risk of being kicked out of that place. That's a pretty basic fact, but apparently that woman was sick the day they taught common sense in school.

When I was at the Sounds of the Underground tour earlier this summer, a kid who didn't look old enough to vote had the very same shirt on. But since 90 percent of the bands who performed at that festival use swear words in their songs, I'm sure no one cared. The moral of the story? Know your audience. Sounds like common sense, right? Here's another piece of free common sense advice: don't wear a racist shirt to school, especially if people of other races go there. In fact, don't wear the shirt at all, unless you're in a big hurry to get your ass kicked.

Now, having said that, I feel like I have to come clean about something. I like death metal. A lot. Ask the Angry Midget. Most of the music in my collection is even angrier than he is. But some of it is very lyrically positive as well. Some of the bands I like are (GASP!) Christian. Personally, believe what you want. I don't care what you believe, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't bother yourself with what I believe. As long as your music rocks, the lyrics mean very little. But for the sake of full disclosure, I'll share a moment from my life with you. I went to a concert last year where a few Christian metal bands performed, and I wore THIS shirt:

I didn't get kicked out of the venue. In fact, I got major props from a guy there. Granted, he was wearing a Slayer shirt, but that counts, right?

If I wore this shirt on a plane flight, I might get a dirty look or two, but no one could kick me off the plane without getting a call from my lawyer twenty minutes later. I'd have to flip a coin to decide which Constitutional Amendment I wanted to invoke. Technically, there's nothing offensive about the shirt. Don't believe me? If you took it to the MPAA, they'd give it a PG rating. But the main reason I wore it? I like fucking with people, especially if I know they're not going to do anything about it. Unlike our current president, most Christians believe in that whole 'turn the other cheek' thing (even the metalheads), so I wasn't expecting anyone to approach me about it (and I was right, no one did). And even if they did, I'd just take a page from Bill Hicks's book, and say, "Well, you're a Christian. Forgive me." Works every time.

Know your audience.

Who is this frightening old woman?

The reason pillowcases were invented.

President Bush named his choice to fill Sandra Day O'Connor's vacancy on the Supreme Court this morning, long-time advisor and legal council Harriet Miers. Because little is known about Miers and she has no judicial record, having never been a judge, the only thing that's a certainty at this point is that Ruth Bader Ginsburg will be the most physically attractive woman on the Supreme Court, once again edging out Justices Scalia and Thomas.

The amount of sheer speculation surrounding Miers in the media is incredible. Bush may have selected her simply because she has no judicial record by which to be evaluated. From a strategic and political standpoint, however, Bush could have nominated William Bennett, even after last week's comments, and probably gotten him confirmed by the Republican Congress.

Miers may eventually turn out to be an under the radar conservative voice that Bush needs to swing the Supreme Court. The problem with that thinking is that Bush didn't have to do that. Republicans control Congress by enough votes that Bush could have nominated someone with an incredibly conservative judicial record and unless they rape and murder babies in their spare time, they could probably get confirmed.

One good sign is that some conservative Congressmen and right-wing groups are already voicing their concern regarding Miers' nomination. These groups and individuals, however, may just be searching for assurances that Bush's nominee would consider overturning Roe v. Wade.

I doubt seriously that President Bush would nominate someone to the Supreme Court who was Pro-Choice and not completely conservative. The lack of information on Miers may be exactly what the President wants in a nominee, because less ammunition exists to be used during the confirmation hearings. Stay tuned in the coming days to see what we new details we learn about Miss Miers.

William Bennett is NUTS

As you've probably gathered over the past year, President Bush and I don't agree on many things. I wonder sometimes if there are things outside of politics, such as flavors of BBQ Sauce or favorite brands of beer, where old W and I might find common ground. Perhaps Bush also enjoyed the movie Billy Madison, as I did. One particular news item this week, gave me particular hope that the President and I might actually agree on something related to politics.

That something is our judgement of comments made by former Secretary of Education and Virtue Guru William Bennett. I have included as much of his comments as I can find below, so that we don't get accused of taking Bennett's interesting perspective out of context (article):

“But I do know that it’s true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could, if
that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country,
and your crime rate would go down,” said Bennett, author of “The Book of
Virtues.” He went on to call that “an impossible, ridiculous and morally
reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out,
these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky.”

Bennett later said that his comments were taken out of context because he was not actually suggesting that all black women be forced to have abortions in order to lower the crime rate in this country because that would be immoral. No kidding?

The problem with Bennett's comments is not that I believe he was ACTUALLY suggesting mandatory abortions for all blacks as a policy. Not that such a position coming from him would surprise me. Rather, the problem with Bennett's comment is that it implies a favorite thesis of conservative morons that somehow black people are to blame for the crime problem in this country.

It's far too deep a topic to discuss in this format, but if you're interested in a well-written paper on the subject check out this paper, which discusses the differences in incaceration rates between whites, blacks and hispanics, and how those should not be used as measures of actual crime, as they often are in the mainstream media. Rather, the fact that poor and minority individuals often can't afford legal representation or don't understand the legal system might have more to do with who is in jail than who pulls the trigger more often.

Where Bush and I agree is that Bennett's comments are ridiculous. It's a little scary that it had to come to something this extreme for us to see eye to eye, but I'm glad that the President isn't so loyal to his former cronies that he would try to defend Bennett's statements. I was afraid he might try.

Without DeLay

Way back in April, you may recall a discussion on this very website about GOP House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and an impending investigation into the legality of campaign contributions that his Political Action Committee received from corporations. In Texas, it against the law for political candidates to receive money from corporations. DeLay and other GOP members in Texas took money from corporations in order to pay for their political campaigns. Seems pretty clear cut to me...

Finally this week, DeLay was indicted for his role. The GOP response has been interesting. First, the GOP responded angrily calling it a political game. DeLay himself categorically denied any wrongdoing. After all, the Prosecutor in Texas, Ronnie Earle, who is bringing the indictment against DeLay is a DEMOCRAT, which apparently disqualifies him from prosecuting criminals like DeLay, who don't share his political views.

While only time will tell about the outcome of DeLay's indictment, some interesting events have already transpired. Republicans have started to return money that was received from DeLay's PAC. Boy, isn't that interesting behavior from a group who apparently doesn't believe the charges levelled against their leader? If Republicans are giving back money, chances are they are doing so only to avoid indictments themselves. After all, if the money was obtained within the law, why give it back? The only thing Republicans love more than keeping abortion legal to be used as a political tool is money, so this is a pretty significant sign of what we're dealing with here.

DeLay's court date is set for three weeks from now. He should have plenty of time to prepare, since he's stepped down as House Majority Leader.

If you want a litmus test for your friends who are Republicans, to see if they are good people who happen to have different beliefs than you or crazy assholes who would defend President Bush if he ate a Jewish baby, see how they react when DeLay is convicted. If they admit what he did was wrong, you know you're dealing with a reasonable individual, despite their unenlightened view of politics. If they're still defending him after he's convicted, suggest that they seek professional help to get Bush's cock removed from their ass.

The Blame Game

I have to say that it's been quite entertaining to hear some of the crap that comes out of the mouth of ex-FEMA cheif Michael Brown since the debacle that was his agency's handling of Hurricane Katrina and the aftermath. If you recall, Brown initially blamed the poor and disabled people of New Orleans for not jumping in their cars and fleeing the city after a mandatory evacuation order was placed before Katrina made landfall. It was at that point that I realized how much of an asshole this guy really is.

Today's Congressional Hearing offerred an opportunity for some other wonderful quotes from Brown, and some downright awesome exchanges between Brown and members of the comittee:

"And while my heart goes out to people on fixed incomes, it is primarily a state and local responsibility. And in my opinion, it's the responsibility of faith-based organizations, of churches and charities and others to help those people." _ Michael Brown, former FEMA director.

While there is no doubt that churches and faith-based organizations have provided more than FEMA did in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, that is a FRIGHTENING quote from a guy whose job it is to coordinate federal management efforts after natural disasters. Would he suggest that churches should have gotten together and put out the fires and rounded up the terrorists after the World Trade Center bombings? Given the number of people without food, clothing and shelter in the aftermath of Katrina, churches and faith-based organizations are obviously not equipped to handle this sort of thing without additional support.

In the words of Rep. Gene Taylor, D-Miss:
"What part of the FEMA plan envisioned that the first responders in Hancock County and much of the Mississippi Gulf Coast would have to loot the local grocery store and loot the local Wal-Mart in order to feed themselves, would have to loot the local Wal-Mart in order to have a change of clothes?"

The irony behind all of this is that one the same page discussing the hearings on Capitol Hill there are still thousands of people affected by Hurricane Rita who don't have access to basis services. Wasn't our response supposed to be better this time? I guess we're too busy trying to figure out who to blame to fix anything. While the President rides around the country burning jet fuel and reminding all of us to conserve gas, I guess anything is possible.

Why I am tired of Fiscal/Economic Conservatives

The President's less than stellar job approval rating among Americans has provided an opportunity for me to have some pretty interesting discussions lately about the President. Recall that I live in the conservative homeland that is Nebraska. While it's not as far gone as say Utah or Wyoming, Nebraska isn't exactly a haven for progressive individuals like myself. The one benefit is that I have plenty of crap to write about on this website.

With the President's job approval rating so low, it means that it can't just be the usual Bush-haters that don't approve of his abysmal policies and wait and see approach to hurricane relief. Even conservative die-hards are starting to voice their dissent. In a bar last night, I encountered one such individual, a self-proclaimed fiscal/economic conservative and social "moderate". Aside from a difficulty setting on Mortal Kombat 3 for Sega Genesis, I have no idea what moderate means. I think maybe it means "I am a conservative who wants to be perceived as compassionate."

This individual complained that he is unhappy with President Bush, despite supporting him less than a year ago in the election of 2004. Why? His continued ignorance regarding the reality of how long we will have troops in Iraq? Nope. The bungled response to Hurriance Katrina? Keep guessing, this list could keep going for a while. This guy is unhappy with Bush because of his out of control government spending.

This is not an uncommon sentiment among "true" conservatives. By "true" I mean those of you who would sell your first-born child for an unchecked free market economy or the elimination of the estate tax. I think it's hilarious Bush is even allowed to consider himself a conservative, given the fact that he still hasn't outlawed abortion or controlled spending, despite the fact that it's been well within his power to do so. The best part about this is that conservatives have no one to blame but themselves.

You can't blame to Democrats in Congress, since they would need the Republicans there to vote through any spending packages. Bush has yet to veto any spending packages that have crossed his desk in 5 years. Could it be that all the conservatives out there who thought they were voting for a true conservative were duped?

The scariest part is that these fiscal conservative assholes had to wait through thousands of innocent people being killed in Iraq, before they finally got upset about Bush's out of control budgetary policies. What's even worse is that there are still some people out there who think Bush is doing a great job. How self-righteous does a person have to be for them not to be able to admit how horrible this guy has done as our President? Is it that important to be right that you're willing to put your own righteousness ahead of the well-being of fellow American citizens?

Hurricane Katrina

I think it's a huge mistake to play political games with a national tragedy like Hurricane Katrina. However, in a situation where federal policies and the response of federal agencies was so inadequate that people's lives were lost as a result of that incompentance, something needs to be said. Molly Ivins said it much better than I could have in the Chicago Tribune:

Molly Ivins: 'Why New Orleans is in deep water'

AUSTIN, Texas -- Like many of you who love New Orleans, I find myself taking short mental walks there today, turning a familiar corner, glimpsing a favorite scene, square or vista. And orrying about the beloved friends and the city, and how they are now.

To use a fine Southern word, it's tacky to start playing the blame game before the dead are even counted. It is not too soon, however, to make a point that needs to be hammered home again and again, and that is that government policies have real consequences in people's lives.

This is not "just politics" or blaming for political advantage. This is about the real consequences of what governments do and do not do about their responsibilities. And about who winds up paying the price for those policies.

This is a column for everyone in the path of Hurricane Katrina who ever said, "I'm sorry, I'm just not interested in politics," or, "There'snothing I can do about it," or, "Eh, they're all crooks anyway."

Nothing to do with me, nothing to do with my life, nothing I can do about any of it. Look around you this morning. I suppose the National Rifle Association would argue, "Government policies don't kill people, hurricanes kill people." Actually, hurricanes plus government policies kill people. One of the main reasons New Orleans is so vulnerable to hurricanes is the gradual isappearance of the wetlands on the Gulf Coast that once stood as a natural buffer between the city and torms coming in from the water. The disappearance of those wetlands does not have the name ofa political party or a particular administration attached to it. No one wants to play, "The Democrats did it," or, "It's all Reagan's fault." Many environmentalists will tell you more than a century's interference with the natural flow of the Mississippi is the root cause of the problem, cutting off the movement of alluvial soil to the river's delta.

But in addition to long-range consequences of long-term policies like letting the Corps of engineers try to build a better river than God, there are real short-term consequences, as well. It is a fact that the Clinton administration set some tough policies on wetlands, and it is a fact that the Bush administration repealed those policies--ordering federal agencies to stop protecting as many as 20 million acres of wetlands.

Last year, four environmental groups cooperated on a joint report showing the Bush Administration's policies had allowed developers to drain thousands of acres of wetlands.

Does this mean we should blame President Bush for the fact that New Orleans is underwater? No, but it means we can blame Bush when a Category 3 or Category 2 hurricane puts New Orleans under. At this point, it is a matter of making a bad situation worse, of failing to observethe First Rule of Holes (when you're in one, stop digging).

Had a storm the size of Katrina just had the grace to hold off for a while, it's quite likely no one would even remember what the Bush administration did two months ago. The national press corps has the attention span of a gnat, and trying to get anyone in Washington to remember longer than a year ago is like asking them what happened in Iznik, Turkey, in A.D. 325.

Just plain political bad luck that, in June, Bush took his little ax and chopped $71.2 million from the budget of the New Orleans Corps of Engineers, a 44 percent reduction. As was reported in New Orleans CityBusiness at the time, that meant "major hurricane and flood projects will not be awarded to local engineering firms. Also, a study to determine ways to protect the region from a Category 5 hurricane has been shelved for now."

The commander of the corps' New Orleans district also immediately instituted a hiring freeze and canceled the annual corps picnic. Our friends at the Center for American Progress note the Office of Technology Assessment used to produce forward-thinking plans such as "Floods: A National Policy Concern" and "A Framework for Flood Hazards Management." Unfortunately, the office was targeted by Newt Gingrich and the Republican right, and gutted years ago.

In fact, there is now a governmentwide movement away from basing policy on science, expertise and professionalism, and in favor of choices based on ideology. If you're wondering what the ideological position on flood management might be, look at the pictures of New Orleans--it seems to consist of gutting the programs that do anything.

Unfortunately, the war in Iraq is directly related to the devastation left by the hurricane. About 35 percent of Louisiana's National Guard is now serving in Iraq, where four out of every 10 soldiers are guardsmen.

Recruiting for the Guard is also down significantly because people are afraid of being sent to Iraq if they join, leaving the Guard even more short-handed.

The Louisiana National Guard also notes that dozens of its high-water vehicles, Humvees, refuelers and generators have also been sent abroad. (I hate to be picky, but why do they need high-water vehicles in Iraq?)

This, in turn, goes back to the original policy decision to go into Iraq without enough soldiers and the subsequent failure to admit that mistake and to rectify it by instituting a draft.

The levees of New Orleans, two of which are now broken and flooding the city, were also victims of Iraq war spending. Walter Maestri, emergencymanagement chief for Jefferson Parish, said on June 8, 2004, "It appears that the money has been moved in the president's budget to handle homeland security and the war in Iraq."

This, friends, is why we need to pay attention to government policies, not political personalities, and to know whereon we vote. It is about our lives.

How time flies....

I have to apologize for not posting for almost 3 weeks. A lot of interesting crap has happened since that last angry post about VD. Here are a sampling of email that I have received:

"Did you die in Hurricane Katrina?"

No. I live in Nebraska. If I did die in Hurricane Katrina, would sending me an email tell you anything?

"I am glad to see you've finally stopped posting crap on this page. You must have gotten the message that people don't like to read crap. I bet you got sick of having like 2 hits a week. Blogs suck, and yours sucks hardest of all."

You wish, dicklicker. I'm back with a vengence. I made it very clear in the beginning that if I didn't have something to write, I wouldn't waste your time. Time is something I haven't had a lot of lately, but things are starting to settle down. If my site sucks, don't read it. For the amount of time it took you to write that email, you could have donated money to the Red Cross, mentored a child, or jerked off a donkey. This site may suck, but the fact that you're reading it says more about you than it does about me.

"I'm surprised that you haven't posted anything on Hurricane Katrina. The feds are fucking this up badly. People are starving to death. Doesn't that piss you off enough to write SOMETHING?"

The situation with the Hurricane was simple. I was feeling like complete shit about it in the first place. I have friends in New Orleans, who are thankfully safe, but I have to say that I was really disgusted with the media coverage of the whole thing. Except Robert Siegel of National Public Radio, who took Secretary of Homeland Security Direction Chertoff to task about the lack of federal response on air. If everyone had been like Robert Siegel, the government might have felt compelled to do something aside from fly over the scene in Air Force One.

"I usually check your site once or twice a week to see what has been written, but lately you've been MIA? Is this the end for the Angry Midget?"

No. As long as people continue to read this and I have something to write about, it will continue. Once people stop reading it or I start to sound like a broken record, that's when it ends. Plain and simple. Let's not read too much into this. I would much rather spend time writing profanity and talking about pirates, than I would analyzing how often I post to this damned site.

Thanks for your concern, and for continuing to write when you think I may have been swallowed by a Hurricane or sold to a Latvian Circus. Happy Labor Day.

So, I'm just looking on the internet for news, minding my own business, when...

Have you considered HERPES, you dirty skank?

Maybe sleeping with half of the men's rugby team at your local college or university was a bad idea after all. If the purpose of advertising is to grab a person's attention, the folks at Novartis Pharmaceuticals have that shit down. Exhibit A is the internet banner ad listed above that links to this site with information about everybody's favorite incurable STD, genital herpes.

For a while, GlaxoSmithKline, the makers of popular crowd-pleaser and herpes destroyer Valtrex were banking their ad campaign on the idea that people with Herpes can go wind surfing, mountain bike in the Mojave desert, paint a picture in a meadow in soft focus, and do all the things the rest of us who aren't spreading our legs for every hobo with a $5 bill do every day.

Novartis has obviously taken a different approach aimed at people who don't know that they contracted an incurable STD during that one-night stand with the lead singer from that Whitesnake cover band that played at their local tavern. I guess I am surprised that this segment of the population actually exists. I guess I look at my neck, where I frequently get razor burn, and I don't understand how you can confuse razor burn with Alabama Crotch Rot. Unless you're shaving every inch of your genitalia, which introduces a whole different set of problems entirely, you have no excuse for thinking that your itchy rash is due to shaving.

Next, I suppose that the makers of antibiotics that are used to treat syphillis and gonorrhea will have ads featuring a guy saying "I thought the firewater coming out of my dick was from all the orange juice I've been drinking. But now I'm not so sure. What else could it be?"

Thank God for the Energy Bill

Gas prices continue to flirt with record high levels again today. Some people are blaming the President for this, which is one way you could look at it. I won't argue with the fact that the President has done very little in terms of a real Energy Policy, unless you include felating the petroleum industry a policy. If giving out blow jobs to oil execs with an ice cube in your mouth is a policy, that makes foreign policy a whole hell of a lot more interesting and just about completely explains Condoleeza Rice.

But do you know who is really to blame for high gas prices, aside from the President? You and me. Americans. The reason gas companies are charging $2.30 for an average gallon of gas is not just because they're a bunch of greedy assholes, but also because we will pay it. If people stopped driving their cars or could not afford to, gas prices would decrease. We need to own up to this, because, pardon my English, Bush ain't gonna do shit about record high gas prices and record high profits for his buddies in the oil industry. You need to stop watching so many episodes of the Care Bears, if you think differently.

'Cause I'm A LIAR!

Future Stars of Perjury Collectors Card

What's that called, when you lie under oath to Congress about abusing steroids? Perjury, which is what is often described in the legal professional as illegal. I was surprised that Congress took a break from their vacation to address such an important issue. After all, 10 millions children have absent or inadequate health care coverage, US Soldiers are being killed for the future of Iraqi democracy, and Congress needs to spend time evaluating whether or not Palmeiro lied about taking steroids when he said "I did not take steroids, period." and then tested positive?

It doesn't take Deputy fucking Dog to crack this case. I'm not sure what a less ambiguous situation for perjury would be, aside from Canseco actually injecting Palmeiro in his ass while testifying in front of Congress that he's didn't use steroids.

Palmeiro is a liar and a cheat. If we put him the Baseball Hall of Fame, his statue should have a needle sticking out of its ass. How stupid is this guy? Baseball implements a new, albeit inadequate, steroid policy. You testify in front of Congress and it's covered live by ESPN. The next logical move is NOT to continue to use steroids. Seems like maybe a good time to take a break from that crap, eh? Not if you're the smartest man in baseball, I guess.

Guns 'N Ammo

Congress, you read this, is considering legislation that would prevent victims of gun violence from sueing gun manufacturers by granting the gun manufacturing industry liability protection. Surprisingly, this has become a bipartisan effort in the Senate, where even Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) is supporting the measure.

Let me make very clear that I am not a proponent of gun control. I have yet to come across a single suggested gun control policy that I feel would curb gun violence. Gun control advocates, in my opinion, have an incredibly simplistic view of the factors that lead to gun violence. Licensing guns, trigger locks, banning certain models of guns don't really solve the problem. Many guns are obtained through theft or illegal means, making any legislation difficult. If we've learned anything in our country's history, please let it be that banning things is never a good idea be it pornography, drugs, alcohol, or guns.

However, there is no safe middle ground in this debate. For on the other side of the issue, you have the National Rifle Association, probably the craziest of the powerful political lobbyists outside of the Right to Life folks who kill abortion doctors. With statements like "From my cold, dead hand" the NRA has managed to eliminate any hope of support from reasonable people.

The NRA views every legislative issue as a slippery slope, which is the "See Dick Run" of logical discourse. If you support the NRA, you seriously should consider steralization or at least surrendering your right to vote because you're either a complete moron or so incredibly self-absorbed that your political agenda continues to paint regular gun owners as a bunch a hillbilly mental ward patients.

The most depressing thing about S. 397 is that it creates a precedent where a manufacturer has no liability for the product they produce. Big tobacco tried this too. Because gun manufacturers are the origin of all these weapons, they are our only hope for progressive solutions to this problem. Giving them a free pass to avoid lawsuits, also provides no motivation or incentive for the gun manufacturers to self-regulate the products that they produce. Write your state Senator using the link in the right column, and share your opinion on this issue.

I'm PROUD to be in Nebraska!

That big building right over there is where pedophiles hang out.

If this story isn't national news by tomorrow, it will be the best thing ever to happen to Nebraska. It's hard enough living in the Cornhusker state. It's not THAT bad of a place to live. It's definitely not as bad as Utah, and so much better than either of the Dakotas.

And yet, some hillbilly has to go down to Kansas and marry a 13 year-old (whom he got pregnant). We're never going to live it down. EVER. We'll always be remembered as that state where 12 year-olds who got married in Kansas go after the fact to mate.

A thought for the day.....

No Oprah is Harpoon spelled backwards.

Scientology is a Cult

A few weeks ago, Tom Cruise sparked an instantaneous controversy while being interviewed by Matt Lauer. We've all known for a long time that Tom Cruise is about Scientology like Fiddler on the Roof is about Jews. In that interview with Lauer, Cruise made some controversial comments about post-partum depression, psychiatry, which he is assuredly quite familiar with, and the use of medication to treat chemical imbalances that lead to mental illness.

As far as Cruise's comments go, I can't say I give half a crap what the guy who starred in Top Gun thinks about the treatment of mental health problems. It's like asking Carrot Top for a neurology consultation. If people take him seriously, they're morons for not recognizing that having your ex-wife play a doctor in a NASCAR movie doesn't qualify you to provide medical advice.

Which brings me to this weekend. I was having a discussion with a group of people about Tom Cruise, some of whom were very upset at his comments, but one in particular was defending him. So, I made essentially the same statement of indifference that I did above, without the clever Carrot Top analogy. What followed was one of the most troubling discussions about religion that I have ever had.

The person who defended Tom Cruise, it turns out, was actually a Scientologist. I didn't know there were Scientologists in Omaha, NE. They must be meeting in someone's basement, because if you use the Church of Scientology Cult Locator on their website, there isn't one within 100 miles of Omaha, NE. Omaha is looking pretty good now isn't it?

In general, I try to keep an open mind about other people's religions, because generally, I learn something new as a result of that strategy. For example, I learned that Mormons believe that Jews, Africans and other people with dark skin are "bad souls", and thus, received a darker coloration from God. The Scientologist refused to have a civilized discussion, and hence, I learned very little.

I don't have a problem with anybody's religious beliefs. There are some religions that believe that people can rise from the dead, Jesus in particular, which I don't think is any more contentious than what Scientologists believe. If you're actually interested in what Scientologists believe and you don't want to buy the book you can get more info here.

My problem with Scientology is that it's essentially a racket. In order to be a good little Scientologist, you have to go to special Scientology psychotherapy, which they call auditing. Cost estimates vary considerably, but in order to get beyond peon status, you must spent between $300,000 and $500,000 on this auditing stuff. It makes it a great religion for Hollywood-types, since they can buy salvation, while still making statements like women who suffer from post-partum depression "need to get out and exercise."

I haven't seen War of the Worlds, but the last movie that I saw where Tom Cruise was worth a shit was Minority Report. Since then, regardless of his religious beliefs, he's really started to go downhill as an actor, but that's just my opinion. This latest case of verbal diarrhea was brilliant self-promotion and idiotic all at the same time.

Any religion that requires it's participants to pay for services connected with salvation, whether it's Scientology or Christianity, should be questioned. Support your church in any way and to whatever degree you wish, but if there are fees that are required for your participation, you're being had.

Back to the Ice

Patrick Roy, unfortunately, will not be joining the Colorado Avalanche this Fall when the NHL returns to the ice. The Owners and the NHLPA agreed to a new collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The Owners got their salary cap, just as they had wanted all along, and the players get to play hockey in the NHL again. An intense amount of the media coverage of the agreement, including this piece from Fox Sports, paints the picture that hockey fans are angry.

As a fan of the NHL, in general, and the Colorado Avalanche, in particular, I can tell you that I am never thrilled when economics and greed force a sport to miss all or part of a season. Some blame the owners and some the players, but they're all greedy bastards doing exactly what you and I would be doing if we had millions of dollars at stake. Anyone who denies that is so completely full of shit, that I would request that they come roll around on my lawn to fertilize it.

True hockey fans may have been disappointed or frustrated, but if you're a true hockey fan, and not just some bitchboy who plays NHL '96 for the Sega with the offsides turned off, you've been too busy preparing for the upcoming season to be angry at all.

The same Fox Sports article that I cited above also talks about one of my favorite things that non-hockey fans love to complain about with every last breath they can muster: how complicated the rules of hockey are. The reality of the situation is, however, that hockey rules are no more or less complicated than Golf, Baseball, or Football. Not every sport can be as fiendishly simplistic as NASCAR, and some of the best sports have some incredibly complicated rules. If you don't understand them, maybe you should just stick with WWE.

Karl Rove is in Big BIG Trouble

With the revelation over the weekend that Karl Rove, one of President Bush's key advisors, was the government official that leaked to the media the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame, the blogs are alive with the sound of music and people calling for Rove's head on a stick. I could join the fray, but I would really just be echoing the sentiments of those who have said it better. Check out America Blog or Daily Kos. Both offer particularly well-written accounts.

In the meantime, Move On PAC has yet another online petition to the Bush Administration, demanding that Rove be fired, if that's your opinion on the matter.

The situation with the Bush Administration gets more and more like Alice in Wonderland every day. The administration has someone publicly survived despite the realization that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, despite that assertion being the entire justification behind an immediate invasion of that country. They're managed to blur the line between the War in Iraq and the War on Terror, despite the fact that Osama Bin Laden is still at large and the fact that we've provided motivation for Al Quida by attacking and occupying a sovereign Arab nation.

Despite this most recent revelation that one of the President's top advisors was to blame for the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame, Republicans are predictably blaming the Democrats for playing politics. Do these people understand what Rove did? He jeopardized the life of a CIA agent and potentially destroyed any leads in the war on terror that she may have been working on, simply because her husband was one of the first people to reveal publicly that despite Bush's statements in the 2003 State of the Union address, Iraq never attempted to purchase enriched Uranium from Niger.

If I found out tomorrow that President Bush invaded North Korea because of links with Al Quida, I can't say that I would be surprised. Or Syria. Or Iran. Or {insert name of country here}. I need a beer.

Great Article on the State of US Homeland Security

We've been discussing since the inception of this blog just before the 2004 Presidential Elections about how woefully inadequate and unresponsive US Homeland Security truly is. This article lays out how we can beef up our public transit systems to avoid an event like the one in London. It's a great article because it's offering solutions, rather than just bitching about the piss poor job the administration is doing with Homeland Secuirty.

Complaining about President Bush, as I have a tendency to do, does not make us safer against terrorist attacks. The sort of constructive dialogue presented in that article, on the other hand, absolutely does. Check it out, and then craft a letter to your Congressman to let him or her know that this is what we want, and that we shouldn't simply react to terrorist events as we have thus far.

If you're not interested in promoting actual Homeland Security, then perhaps this website is where you should be spending your time.

Terror in London

Terrorists struck again today, this time in London. Click here for the latest news. It's another sad day for the world, but the reaction to this really got me thinking. Bombings like this by insurgents against US troops and law-abiding Iraqi citizens has become commonplace, and yet we're ten times more horrified when it happens somewhere we don't expect, as if people in London's lives are somehow more valuable than those of our troops or the Iraqis.

The turn of events in London is beyond horrific. An interesting sidenote to the entire situation has been President Bush's statement. He's obviously remorseful and saddened, as we all are. Based on his statements, however, he obviously thinks that there is some aspect of homeland security that would prevent the same thing from happening in Miami or Houston or Los Angeles or Seattle. And in reality, there is not.

I challenge anyone to come up with a policy or mechanism currently in place or even theoretical that could be used to prevent this sort of thing from happening. I think it would make for an interesting discussion, since this whole issue of Homeland Security is once again being thrust to the forefront, as the President continues to contend that we are safe, when we are obviously not. Bush's hubris in his own policies will certainly guarantee that this sort of tragedy could happen in any American city with mass transit. I'd be interested to hear your comments on the state of "Homeland Security".

Interesting Comments

If you read the comments below the Letter to the Red States post below, you see an interesting example of why the Democrats are not the dominant political force that they once were. If you talk to Republicans, there exists a party loyalty that you just don't get from Democrats. You definitely don't get this "Puppy who lost his way" "Why did we put Dean in charge" "Woe is me" sort of response. Democrats are definitely in need of some direction, and this midget and his website accept no responsibility in giving the party that direction. The last time I led a group of people anywhere, we ended up at a Riverboat Casino in Iowa drinking Bud heavy and playing nickel slots.

When people ask what happened to the Democrats, I think the answer is that we were so sure of ourselves and our party going into the 2004 Elections that when we lost, we were dumbfounded. When you believe deeply that the majority of Americans are levelheaded and intelligent consumers of information, and then you have them turn out in record numbers to prove you wrong, it takes time to get your breath back.

Happy 4th of July, just by the way. It's always a little bittersweet for me on the 4th. I love my country, but I am disgusted with all these psuedo-patriotic numbnuts that sing along with Lee "I've never served a day in my life for this country" Greenwood every year. If raping your cousin were popular, Lee Greenwood would write a song "And I'd gladly put my dick in her mouth, and pee on her today. 'Cause there ain't no doubt, I love this bitch. God Bless my cousin Mae."

In order to really have pride in what it means to be American, you have to have a full understanding of the rights and wrongs of our country. We've said many times before that this child-like infantuation with our country is useless, and not really that patriotic. Patriotism is loving your country, while realizing that it ain't perfect. True patriots are people who question the governments actions, instead of blindly saluting every time someone stands in front of a flag.

A Message to the Red States

About 90% of the e-mail forwards that I receive are a complete waste of time. A good friend sent me this one, and it's definitely food for thought:

Dear Red States:

We're pissed off at the way you've treated California, and we've decided we're leaving. We intend to form our own country, and we're taking the other Blue States with us. In case you aren't aware, that includes Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois and all the Northeast. We believe this split will be beneficial to the nation, and especially to the people of the new country of New California.

To sum up briefly: You get Texas, Oklahoma and all the slave states. We get stem cell research and the best beaches. We get Elliot Spitzer. You get Ken Lay.
We get the Statue of Liberty. You get OpryLand. We get Intel and Microsoft. You get WorldCom. We get Harvard. You get Ole' Miss.

We get 85 percent of America's venture capital and entrepreneurs. You get Alabama. We get two-thirds of the tax revenue; you get to make the red states pay their fair share. Since our aggregate divorce rate is 22 percent lower than the Christian Coalition's, we get a bunch of happy families. You get a bunch of single moms.

Please be aware that Nuevo California will be pro-choice and anti-war, and we're going to want all our citizens back from Iraq at once. If you need people to fight, ask your evangelicals. They have kids they're apparently willing to send to their deaths for no purpose, and they don't care if you don't show pictures of their children's caskets coming home.

We do wish you success in Iraq, and hope that the WMDs turn up, but we're not willing to spend our resources in Bush's Quagmire. With the Blue States in hand, we will have firm control of 80 percent of the country's fresh water, more than 90 percent of the pineapple and lettuce, 92 percent of the nation's fresh fruit, 95 percent of America's quality wines (you can serve French wines at state dinners) 90 percent of all cheese, 90 percent of the high tech industry, most of the U.S. low-sulfur coal, all living redwoods, sequoias and condors, all the Ivy and Seven Sister schools, plus Stanford, Cal Tech and MIT.

With the Red States, on the other hand, you will have to cope with 88 percent of all obese Americans (and their projected health care costs), 92 percent of all U.S. mosquitoes, nearly 100 percent of the tornadoes, 90 percent of the hurricanes, 99 percent of all Southern Baptists, virtually 100 percent of all televangelists, Rush Limbaugh, Bob Jones University, Clemson and the University of Georgia.

We get Hollywood and Yosemite, thank you. Additionally, 38 percent of those in the Red states believe Jonah was actually swallowed by a whale, 62 percent believe life is sacred unless we're discussing the death penalty or gun laws, 44 percent say that evolution is only a theory, 53 percent that Saddam was involved in 9/11 and 61 percent of you crazy bastards believe you are people with higher morals then we lefties.

By the way, we're taking the good pot, too. You can have that dirt weed they grow in Mexico.

Sincerely,

Author Unknown in New California.

My Favorite Terrorism Fallacies

Hello! I'm Still Alive.

While the Bush Administration is running around giving each other the Dirty Sanchez or a quick reacharound in celebration of the 1 year anniversary of the end of the transfer of "sovereignty" to the Iraqi people, I continue to tire of news analysts, conservative talkshow hosts, and the general public's lack of ability to think beyond the 1st grade level when it comes to terrorism. In recognition of the occasion and the President's inevitably boring and asinine public news address this evening, I wanted to share my favorite widely held fallacies about terrorism. Take notes as I'm sure the President will spend a good long while reinforcing some of these in his address.

1) The Iraq War is an effective campaign in the War on Terror! Wow. This is probably the most popular load of bullshit that's been heaped on the American public to date. The premise is that Saddam Hussein is somehow connected with the terrorists of Al Quida who killed thousands of Americans on 9/11/01. Despite empirical denial of this fact, Bush and his douche squad continue to promote the idea that the War in Iraq is another front in the war on terrorism. Saddam was a complete piece of shit, and his disregard for human rights DOES make him a terrorist in his own way, but not necessarily connected to THE terrorists we should be pursuing.

2) Reports and research that criticize the Bush Administration's terrorism policies give terrorists ideas on how to carry out further attacks. I was reminded of this today while I was reading this article about the research of two Stanford scientists who postulated the negative effects of terrorists putting botulinum toxin in the milk supply. Instead of sharing the concern of the researchers, Bush Administration and Homeland Security officials renounced the article, saying that it was giving terrorists ideas on US vulnerabilities. If we learned one thing and one thing only from 9/11, please let it be that terrorists are fully aware of our vulnerabilities and don't need the Proceedings of the American Academy of Sciences to give them ideas. Instead of recognizing the issue as a legitimate terrorism threat and handling it, the Administration would rather attempt to suppress the issue, and hope that terrorists read Teen People.

3) Steps taken by the Bush Administration have made us safer as a country. I saw a poll the other day that showed a trend in public opinion that this ridiculous idea was losing support. Of the three fallacies we have discussed, I think this is potentially the most harmful. Believing that we are safe, when in fact we are most definitely not, is incredibly dangerous. This attitude, combined with the suppression of public discussion of legitimate threats and falsely associating the War in Iraq with Al Quida, makes the actual terrorism more difficult to combat. We have failed to recognize a variety of threats including dams, oil supply lines, power plants, toxins in our food and water supply and numerous others. The only way to prevent another 9/11 is to encourage public discussion of our vulnerabilities and to address those issues, something the Bush Administration has largely avoided.

SHARK ATTACK!!!!

I'm hungry for a media feeding frenzy!

Those of us who watch the news on TV have been subjected to a prime example of media hype, with the death over the weekend of a Louisiana teenager and the subsequent attack on another teenager yesterday, both in Florida. As per usual, the television media is having a feeding frenzy of their own, making it seem as though we should be shocked and awed by the fact that sharks attack people who swim in their habitat.

I'm no marine biologist, and in fact, I've never even met a marine biologist, come to think of it. Despite that fact, it seems like common sense to me that if you swim in shark infested waters (or fish in the case of the second attack), you might expect to get attacked by a shark. I'm frankly surprised that this sort of thing doesn't happen more often. When did we forget that we're still part of the food chain?

The media apparently has. Check out this map, for example. Despite the fact that the caption of the map shows that Florida has only had one death from a shark attack since 2001 (4 years ago for you math majors out there), the seas of the Eastern coast run red with the blood of innocents. Do you know how red the map would be if we used the same coloring strategy for people killed by dogs? Or their husbands? Or their parents? Blood fucking red over the entire US.

And yet, here we are devoting hours of media coverage and at least a thousand words on this page to something tragic, yet not at all surprising. Forget the fact that crude oil prices have spiked the week before the biggest travel weekend of the summer. Ignore the actual problems in this country including a lack of health care, even for children. Sharks may have attacked two people in Florida, but the American people are the ones being eaten alive.

Bush is NOT Pro-Life and Neither Are You.

I may be short, but I'm not short enough on functioning brain cells to believe for a second that President Bush actually Pro-Life. Saying that Bush is Pro Life is like saying that Michael Jackson is trying to stop child sex abuse and that oil companies are trying to save the American people money on energy costs.

While in Wichita, Kansas this last weekend, I had a brief and rather intense discussion with a person who was wearing a Pro Bush/Pro Life t-shirt. I asked the lady if the shirt was supposed to be sarcastic, since Bush had executed more people while Governor of Texas than any other Governor in US history since the death penalty was re-legalized in 1977. She pointed out that President Bush is against abortion, which makes him Pro Life.

I asked her why he hadn't banned abortions, if he is against them, and she said that it was because the Democrats had wasted so much time blocking his Social Security reforms, that he didn't have time to ban abortion. I guess with all the war-mongering and uncontrolled spending, Bush hasn't exactly had time to address this critical issue. This is the kind of logic that people used to re-elect Bush as President. Sickening isn't it?

The truth is that President Bush is not Pro Life, and the woman I ran into in Wichita is not the only person that feels that because the President uses phrases like "sanctity of life" and "culture of life", we can all overlook his military decisions that have killed thousands of innocent people and his record on the death penalty as Governor of Texas. We all know that President Clinton was Pro Intern, Reagan was Pro Military Spending, and President Grover Cleveland was Pro All-you-can-eat Mongolian B-B-Q. Those are pretty obvious. How anyone can look at President Bush and say "This guy is all about saving lives." reaches far beyond the capability of my understanding.

Sarah Michelle Gellar Takes One Up the Ass

Don't get too excited, I'm just going to tell you about the worst movie I've ever seen, and not some sordid tale of Buffy following in Paris Hilton's or Pamela Anderson's home movie footsteps. If you haven't seen the movie The Grudge, I don't recommend that you do. It's honestly not an exaggeration for me to say that it's simply the worst movie I have ever seen. This piece of donkey crap makes a clunker like Titanic seem like The Usual Suspects.

Here's the premise: there have been a number of attempts lately (The Ring is another example) to remake Japanese Thriller/Horror films with American actors in English. The whole concept of adapting a foreign film or book for an American audience is fraught with problems. Vanilla Sky is another example of what complete shit can result from those attempts. We'll save the whole what happens when you try to adapt a book that is largely existential philosophy into a feature film for another day when I haven't been drinking for several hours already.

My point is that The Grudge is so full of recycled twists that it becomes completely predictable. And when you can predict how much a movie is going to keep on sucking, it takes the misery associated with viewing it to a whole new level. Takashi Shimizu is not one of the programmers whose name you get to see if you beat the Legend of Zelda on the good old Nintendo Entertainment System. He directed The Grudge and I bet people still haven't stopped kicking his ass since it came out.

So much of the "horror" in The Grudge is a copy of The Ring, which wasn't that great of a film to be copying in the first place, and Memento, as shimmies attempted to make the plot occur out of order so that you don't figure out too early that this movie is going to make you wish you were watching geriatric porn instead of suffering through 92 minutes of crap.

Terri Schaivo's Autopsy

Click on the link above to read the news piece about Schaivo's autopsy. Basically, I just wanted to make one point: Schaivo's brain weighed half as much as what a normal person's brain did and the medical examiner described extensive neuronal (brain) death. This is why 90% of Americans believe doctors over faith healers. There was no possible recovery for Schaivo. And more importantly, no evidence of malice on the part of her husband. Case closed.

What this means is that all those idiots protesting for Schaivo's life, while ignoring the massive loss of life occurring among our very young, very much fully-functioning, very much alive US soldiers, had the wool pulled over their eyes. They may as well have been protesting to save the life of a rack of pork spare ribs as I was drizzling it with B-B-Q sauce.

The saddest part for me is that these people who felt they knew better about Schaivo's condition than teams of neurologists and other professionals who were involved in making difficult medical decisions will not learn from this experience. They will continue to inhumanly extend the lives of other Americans, against their wishes in some cases, for their own political gains. The significance of an autopsy supporting the conclusion of irreversible brain death is lost on these poor souls.

Michael Jackson Supporters

The verdict in the Michael Jackson case is probably going to be announced before I can finish typing this posting, but as I was scanning through the coverage that is the media circus, I came across this link on MSNBC.com with a picture of Jackson's supporters forming a human chain along the road to the courthouse.

I'm not sure what this chain is supposed to symbolize, aside from the fact that these people obviously don't have real jobs, but it truly pisses me off that adult people behave in this way. Guilty of child molestation or not, Michael Jackson is one fucked up person. He's admitted sleeping with young kids who were not his own, and these people are out there on the highway, trying to show their appreciation? Get a life.

What sort of regard does this show for his victim? I don't care how much you liked the album Bad, or how good you can moonwalk. You're supporting a child molester. If you're standing by a road when most people would be working at their jobs or complaining about you on their blogs while they're supposed to be working at their jobs, what message are you trying to send?

A number of Jackson's supporters have pointed out that Jackson is being targeted because he's famous and African-American (although his ethnicity is debatable at this point in time). The irony of statements like that is that none of these freaks would go to the courthouse to defend any other black person accused of child molestation. Thousands of people each year are accused of sexual assault of some kind, and these people wouldn't bat an eye in protest for any of them.

Regardless of what you think about the 10 counts levied against Jackson, at least have the decency and respect for the alleged victims to honor judicial process and get back to your jobs where you can watch the verdict with the rest of us, who are too obsessed with the media coverage to leave our computers and/or TVs.

A Midget's Guide to Buying Real Estate (Why I Hate Realtors)

As some of you may have noticed, I haven't posted as much lately, and I'm sure the speculation as to the reasons for that is currently a hot topic of discussion on internet message boards in 40 languages. I want to clarify that it is not because of an extended drinking binge or a Dog the Bounty Hunter Marathon on A&E. The ladyfriend I often call my wife and I have been looking at buying a house, and as anyone who has gone through this process can tell you, it's not exactly conducive to having a life outside of looking for a house. It takes every moment of your life.

During this process, we eventually found a great realtor who is currently helping us through negotiations on what will hopefully be our house in a few short weeks. Much like girlfriends, however, you rarely meet the best realtor the first, second or forty-fifth time out. You must wade through a cess pool of greedy, fake assholes to find the right greedy, fake asshole.

Realtors, as a group, are on the same level as used car salesmen and subsequently only one level above those who sexually assault the elderly in my book. Here are some rules I learned from dealing with several different realtors:

1) Every Realtor is a "expert" at the neighborhood or part of the city you're interested in buying in. Even in cases where the realtor has never been in or heard of your neighborhood, expect them to tell you that they sold 50 houses in that zip code since January. It's only when they get lost trying to "lead" you to some potential homes in that neighborhood that you get the idea that maybe the guy was completely full of shit.

2) Realtors that work open houses are losers. This is even more true if the open house in question is for another agent's clients. Our agent that we ended up working with made a good point that if a realtor is worth their salt, particularly during peak sales months, they don't have time to spend a whole afternoon babysitting a house so the whole neighborhood can see the inside of their mysterious neighbors' house. Open houses are a great way to see a lot of houses without much at stake, but beware of the agents that lurk at these events.

3) Don't listen to a realtor's advice when making a bid. Make them show you a market analysis that will help to guide your offer. One agent we talked to said that you should never offer less than 10% of the asking price in an initial offer. Another said 6%. Our agent researched houses that had sold recently with similar square footage and amenities in that neighborhood in the past 6 months and determined that our offer should probably be in the neighborhood of 20% less than the asking price. Beware of agents who tell you to only bid a certain amount less than the asking price, since this strategy would have ended up costing us a lot more on the house we ended up with.

Or you could always sell everything you own and move to Costa Rica so you can live on the beach, get high, and play with spider monkeys all day long.

Wedding Anniversary

As difficult as it may be for some people, including my friends and relatives, to believe, my first wedding anniversary is coming up this weekend. I told you guys she wouldn't leave. Mister Bling even owes me $50.

In looking for a gift for my wife, I discovered that each subsequent anniversary has a THEME for the kind of gift you're supposed to get for each other. Who knew? Looking into this issue further, I discovered that the gift ideas were completely lame. No wonder the divorce rate is so damned high. You give me paper for my first anniversary, we're getting a divorce. I got a whole fucking pile of paper on my desk at work. How about these alternatives:

1st Anniversary: (Traditional - Paper): Nothing says I won't have sex with anyone else this year like a Plasma TV. Preferable something more than 42".

2nd Anniversary: (Traditional - Cotton): What, like Q-tips or a flannel bathing suit? Seriously. After two years of marriage, a Home Theatre set-up would go nicely with last year's plasma.

3rd: (Traditional - Leather): Unless you're into bondage or dressing like David Hassellhoff, the leather anniversary needs rethinking. Midgets love go-carts, and I am no exception. Nothing less than 40 horsepower, either.

4th: (Traditional -Fruit/Flowers): Does this seem out of place to anyone else? You manage to make it 4 years with the same vagina, day in and day out, and you get a fruit basket? I suppose you could always throw in a cantelope to have sex with, but I'm thinking 4 years should be the motorcycle anniversary.

5th: (Traditional - Wood): Wow! You beat out the statistical average for length of marriage and I purchased a nice box of toothpicks and a lumberjack costume. How about reinstating blow jobs? That's a gift of wood if I wouldn't mind giving repeatedly.

The list goes on, but let's face it, who really stays married for 5 years anyway? And if you do manage to keep it all together, who needs some Congress of rich assholes to tell you what kind of gift is appropriate? My advice for a happy marriage: avoid children, lots of drinking, and go carts. And you thought Dr. Phil was the relationship master.

Name my Dog Contest

My wife and I are getting another dog, probably in a few weeks. It's going to be a girl dog. I am having a hell of a time coming up with good names for girl dogs. My wife has already shot down Bozo (which would be a damn cool name for a girl dog) and Mayor McPoochy. So, I am looking for suggestions for a girl dog name. Post it under comments. If your name is chosen, I will give you a sporty Ryan the Angry Midget T-shirt. Make as many suggestions as you like to increase your chances of winning. A winner will be selected sometime in June, when we get the new puppy. Good luck.

Question of the Week

I'm staring a new feature to encourage people to post comments. As the site continues to grow, only a small number of people have elected to comment, so I am hoping this will encourage people to post their thoughts on particular issues. Look for this on Mondays.

Who is the best Presidential cadidate for the 2008 election for your political party?

Stem Cell Debate

Stem Cell research is not a foreign topic on this site or to many of our readers. The debate has come to the forefront again this week, as two bills in Congress circulate that would allow federal funding of stem cell research. President Bush has said that he will veto any efforts to allow federal funding for research involving stem cells.

As with many scientific issues that have become politicized for one reason or another, there is certainly room on either side of the debate for reasonable and educated people to disagree. A good source of information, if you're interested in learning more, is The National Institutes of Health (NIH) webpage on Stem Cell Research. It's important to have a solid understanding of what is involved in the process, particularly if a person is going to be opposed to said process.

Despite my pleas, President Bush and many opponents of stem cell research continue to spread half-truths and complete lies about how embryonic stem cells are acquired. The vast majority of embryonic stem cells in the existing lines that are available in the US to be used in research were obtained from left over embryos from the process of in vitro fertilization. If not used for stem cell research, these fertilized embryos are presently discarded after a set amount of time.

Opponents of stem cell research relate the process of developing embryonic stem cells to destroying the embryo and therefore, ending a potential human life. The problem with this logic, aside from the fact that it is not based in fact, is that these fertilized eggs would otherwise be thrown into the trash, if they weren't used for stem cell research. For some reason, we don't have a problem tossing these embryos in the trash, but we do have a problem utilizing their potential to treat serious diseases that kill thousands of people every year.

I think it's perfectly acceptable to have a moral objection to stem cell research, as long as you understand the process you're objecting to. For some reason, opponents of stem cell research have chosen not to object to in vitro fertilization or any of the other methods for creating pregnancies that fertilize multiple eggs in the hope that 1 might implant. There is no logic behind saying that you're saving a human life by opposing stem cell research, unless you also oppose in vitro fertilization for the same reason.

Worst Star Wars Review EVER!

For those of you living on the frozen planet of Hoth or the forest moon of Endor, Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith opened last night around the country. Of course, every film critic has to post their opinion, as if I really give a damn about the opinion of some pretentious bastard who was jerking off to Barbarella when the original Star Wars came out in 1977. Which brings me to the thesis of this post: I hate film critics.

Let me first say that a frequent reader of this blog, Mister Bling, is an excellent reviewer of films. He has written several stellar reviews for different websites, and could make his own blog (hint, hint) where he reviewed films, and it would be 1) entertaining and 2) not completely full of crap. Mister Bling loves movies, and it's that passion that is lacking from today's film critics.

Take John Hartl's review of Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith (I'm sorry for including a link here). Hartl does what many film reviewers try too hard to do, which is to imply way too many things about a movie that were never intended. Hartl expects us to believe that the political themes in the film are meant to be a political allegory (he actually uses that word in his review) to present times. To me, this is like saying that Chet from Weird Science is really supposed to represent Rush Limbaugh because they're both disgusting pieces of crap, when it actually doesn't have to be that complicated.

Hartl goes on to say that the film is "uneven" (without any explanation as to why) "increasingly tired" (again, without justification) and complains that the climax to this much anticipated film seems "predetermined". No shit. You mean to tell me that since we've all seen the original Star Wars and already know the outcome of this film that the movie is predetermined? This guy should run the President with that sort of logic. Yes, John it is the very definition of predetermined when you see part IV before you see part III. Very good. Nice work John.

Our friend John, who writes a lot of mediocre film reviews for the Seattle Times, has forgotten the entire point of a film like Star Wars: to be entertaining. Although I haven't seen the film myself, I know it will at least be entertaining. His review of Episode III is a classic example of a film critic taking himself way too seriously. Like I'm less likely to see this film because you think it has little artistic merit. If I wanted artistic, I'll rent The Piano or Spy Kids 3 or one of the other movies John Hartl would undoubtedly jerk off to at a 4 pm showing. People don't care if Star Wars or Billy Madison or Dude, Where's My Car wins critical acclaim or Oscars. Star Wars was already seen by more people in one night than Hartl's favorite "The Russian Ark" will ever have. Because no one cares what John Hartl thinks of the movie or any movie for that matter.

This is the sort of thing that's akin to criticizing the cinematography of Bowling for Columbine or the Paris Hilton Sex Video, it doesn't make a damn bit of difference. How would you like your job to be completely meaningless in the grand scheme of things? Like we need some blowhard to tell us the artistic value of Star Wars. Thanks for your opinion John, I'm going to see Star Wars.

Movie critics seem to me to be people that don't have enough creativity to write about their own opinions or ideas, they have to summarize and judge the artistic merit of other people's ideas without any skills aside from being able to summarize a plot. Do we truly need this sort of thing? I know I don't, unless Mister Bling is planning to start his own film review site, I'll stick to making up my own mind.

Readers, I'm concerned about your drinking....

We need to talk. I've known most of you for 6 months, some of you, I've known a little longer. Lately, I have been concerned that you've all been drinking too much alcohol. Don't deny it. What brings me to this conclusion? MSNBC.com posted a short survey entitled Do you have a drinking problem? I would encourage everyone to take this survey, because I'm concerned about the amount of alcohol you've all been consuming lately.

The questions on the survey are classic. Do you ever need a drink to get started in the morning, or to stop shaking? Yeah, so what? I'm sorry but if you need a drink to stop shaking, you don't need a survey to tell you that you have a drinking problem. You need a helmet, and an insurance company with excellent legal representation.

Do you have “blackouts”? All the time. Again, if you're blacking out, or what comedian Dave Attell refers to as "time travel", I think it's time to accept that you have a drinking problem. The shaking and blacking out are not ambiguous signs of a drinking problem. This is like asking a kid in the oncology ward of your local hospital to take a survey to see if they have a cancer problem. If you're to that point, it's already a little too late.

Furthermore, if a person has these issues and they don't already realize that all the wetting the bed (referred to in the survey as "trouble at home"), parking the car in the neighbor's bushes (also "trouble at home") and 12 weekends with consecutive DUIs (Have you had problems connected with drinking during the past year?) may be a sign of a problem, a survey on MSNBC.com is not about to make this more clear.

Most people with drug and alcohol problems know and understand that they have a problem. Some are even proud of this fact. Those that don't know they have a problem are in denial, and would answer no to Do you wish people would mind their own business about your drinking -- stop telling you what to do? A lot of alcoholics I know, my family is full of them, don't care what other people think of their drinking, even when they're passed out on the front lawn in their tighty-whiteys as people are arriving for Christmas dinner. You don't reach that point by caring about other people and what they think of your drinking. In fact, it's quite a selfish problem really.

Crime surveys are the same way. Asking people about drug use or other illegal things that they do, and then pretending that the information provided is valid is the very definition of delusional. People who are breaking the law aren't going to report it on a survey, even an anonymous one, and people who aren't breaking the law will either blow it off or lie to make the survey more interesting because they know they're innocent. It's a load of crap.

So, if you failed the survey, don't worry. It will either validate what you already know or provide information that you don't care about. That's what I call a great survey.

Quote of the Year

For the weekend, I thought I would leave you with something stellar that I read this week. The NY Times, every Tuesday, has their Science Times feature section. If you like science at all, it's worth picking it up, or dropping by their website, because it's well-written and informative, to say the least. About 90% of the assorted science trivia that I am aware of comes from this section of the NY Times.

This last Tuesday, May 10, the Science Times had a feature article with Dr. Michael Gazzaniga, a neuroscientist and bioethicist from Dartmouth. Dr. Gazzaniga is nationally renowned for his research, much of which is discussed in the article.

During the article, Dr. Gazzaniga provides of the best analogies for refuting abortion advocates and those who oppose stem cell research when they talk about destroying "potential" human beings:

"Dr. Gazzaniga argues that it is meaningless to call a fertilized egg a potential human being. "There's potential for 30 homes inside a Home Depot, but if the Home Depot burns down, the headline isn't '30 homes burn down.' It's 'Home Depot burns down.'

It's not a revolutionary concept we're dealing with here, but I know I have struggled with ways to counter the pervasive and emotional arguments of those who wish to limit stem cell research. When confronted by another researcher who was amazed by the way the cells replicate to create life, Gazzaniga responded that cancer has the same "beautiful replication" that the other researcher admonished so much. Should we not interfere with cancer's development, because we would be interfering with God's master plan for our liver?

It also relates to the discussion we had earlier in the week regarding science and religion. I think the comments under that post were incredible, if you haven't had time to check them out. Nothing inherent about religion or science requires there to be a conflict between the two. There are literally tons of people who are educated scientists who also consider themselves to be religious people.

Where the problems begin is when one group, typically the devoutly religious, oversteps its bounds and mischaracterizes the other. Organized religions and their followers tend to grossly pervert and misrepresent science, probably due mostly in part to ignorance. Scientists, on the other hand, tend to stay out of religious issues as much as possible.

The stem cell debate is another in a long history of examples of religious groups creating half-truths and in some cases, all out lies, about science. For example, stem cell research is not completed on cells that would ever be a human being on their own, despite the fact that you hear this from its detractors all the time.

Evolution is another excellent example. People who understand evolution know that Darwin, nor any of his scientific followers has ever suggested that we evolved from apes. Yet, this idea is constantly used by many who lack a complete understanding of the issue.

And there will be other issues in the future that are just like this. The best way to fight these sorts of issues is to be educated about science. It's not difficult to get information about science, even if you're not a scientist. Religious zealots are attempting to dictate every aspect of our lives from what we can see at the movie theatre to what our kids will be learning in public school science class. Information is the one tool that we have that they do not. We should use that to our advantage or prepare for the worst.

The Apprentice Primer

Those of you who know this site, know that I have a pretty rotten attitude about reality TV, despite the fact that I often find myself watching it for hours on end. The live season finale of the third season of Donald Trump's The Apprentice (website) is coming up. I can't tell if it will be tonight or if tonight is just the last episode before the season finale. They do this so I will watch to find out. And the saddest part is that unlike most of the contestants from this show, it works.

This season, if you have enough of a life where you're doing something productive on Thursday nights, pits successful people in business who went to college (Book Smarts) versus those with only a high school education (Street Smarts), in an attempt to settle the age old argument about whether or not it's truly worth it to go to college. At least, that's what I can come up with.

Watching the contestants from both teams makes me glad that 1) I didn't major in business management or accounting 2) I went to college. Aside from the attorneys, the college contestants are completely obnoxious, and frequently stupid. All of the contestants from the Street Smarts team are equally obnoxious with a dash of white trash thrown in for good measure. Both believe in the superiority of their own path to business success. The Street Smarts team called their team Net Worth, because they're all apparently worth millions of dollars.

This raises an interesting point about business, in general: you don't have to go to college to succeed in business, but it makes you behave a lot less like white trash if you do. I have heard people talk about this season, as though it's theme could be generalized to all professions. Frankly, I don't want my neurosurgeon or even my kid's kindergarten teacher to be someone who didn't go to college, but who people generally thinks has "street smarts".

The whole concept of "street smarts" is baffling to me. It's like saying "You're not smart in a conventional way, but damn Pete, when it comes to knowing how to panhandle for crack, you've got it all figured out." Street smarts are a bunch of crap, in my opinion. I discussed this with a street smart person the other day, and he made the point we've all heard a thousand times, which is that a lot of people who go to college are book smart, but dumb in the ways of the world.

My personal opinion is that this is a contrived idea, used to make uneducated people feel superior in some small way. This is not a rip on people who didn't go to college. I don't believe that you have to go to college to be intelligent or to be successful in this world. Thanks to the Bush Administration's cuts into federal student loans and grant programs, a whole lot of very intelligent people are not going to be able to afford to go to college. But, I do think that saying you have street smarts is a different way of saying that you're the guy that knows the difference between powder and black tar heroin, and you're proud of that fact.

Next season, I want to see an Apprentice with midgets versus people of average size. Or how about fast food employees versus Ivy League Grads? Any ideas for NBC?

A Science Lesson from an Angry Midget

A common theme in our discussions as of late has been the increasing influence of the religious right on our every day lives. Even those who consider themselves to be atheists or agnostics are seeing the influence of Christian fundamentalists creep into places like public schools and town hall meetings. Currently, a panel appointed by the Kansas State Board of Education is holding hearings about new scientific standards for teaching evolution, which would require schools to teach students that evolution is a controversial theory and not scientific fact. Representatives from the American Academy of Sciences and others in the scientific community have declined to participate in these discussions.

The diversity of groups involved in this movement to qualify the teaching of evolution is truly fascinating. The Discovery Institute, based in Seattle, has been heavily involved for quite some time in promoting alternative views to Darwinian evolution. The Discovery Institute feels that science curricula should highlight many of the scientifically-based criticisms of Darwin's theory of evolution. The Institute stops short of endorsing Intelligent Design, which is the religious right's new way of attempting to pass literal interpretation of Genesis as a scientific theory. In fact, the Discovery Institute makes a strong point that it does not endorse intelligent design.

On the same side of the issue, neo-conservatives and the religious right are pushing the same agenda, but for a completely different reason. While many of them would cheer any scientific evidence that would refute Darwin's theory of evolution, it's doubtful that any of them have taken the time to read up on it. For some reason, there are still people who feel that the public schools need to be an extension of their church. The irony about the union of these unlikely bedfellows is that one group wants a more complete scientific representation of Darwin's theories, and the other wants to avoid scientific discussions about the origins of our species entirely.

I have no problem with the constant process of scientific debate and discovery. I believe that evolution did occur, although maybe not in the exact way outlined by Charles Darwin. When one considers the timeline of scientific discovery that Darwin was working in, his theory of evolution is pretty damned impressive. Darwin didn't know anything about DNA, genetics, the human genome, just to name a few. Reasonable people have different ideas about this, and because it's science, that's perfectly acceptable. As long as people have some opinion about what is going on scientifically.

There are numerous scientific theories that used to be taken as truth, that have since been shown to be inadequate to explain certain phenomena or even completely wrong. The wonderful thing about science is that there really isn't a right or wrong answer. Science is a process, and during the process of scientific investigation, we more often than not, find out we were wrong about our assumptions. Being wrong about things is actually parting of the driving force behind science, and most scientists have no problem admitting that they were wrong about something, since it often teaches them something important about what they're examining. Proving our assumptions to be false is how some of the greatest revolutions in scientific thought came to be.

Religion, however, is something completely different. The fundamentalist and Evangelical viewpoint on religion is that every other explanation is wrong. The problem with this approach, particularly when it comes to examining science, is that you never experience progress or learn anything new. Anything short of God physically creating the universe is unacceptable. Evangelicals dismiss anything that doesn't fit into their incredibly narrow worldview. This type of thinking is not adequate to stand up to be taught as science in our public schools.

If you want to teach your kids that David Hasselhoff created the entire world in the privacy of your own home, I don't give a rat's ass. Attempting to disguise your religious beliefs as a scientific theory, in order to get some attention and exert a little influence over your school's curriculum is bogus. Our public schools are not extensions of your political and/or religious agendas. If you want your children to lack critical thinking skills to evaluate theories, scientific or otherwise, I don't care. But, don't screw up everyone else's free and public education in the process.

Hate Mail Review

I have received a number of requests to post hate mail again. It's been a quiet few months in the hate mail department. Aside from a few of the usual dissenting voices, who refuse to post their tirades under comments, most of the email I have been receiving is pretty tame, which is why I haven't posted it in a long while. The number of people visiting the site continues to grow slowly, but I think the quality of the dialogue has improved vastly from those early "You suck so much cock!" days.

Nonetheless, there were a few people who sent me messages that were noteworthy.

Angry Midget, about 90% of what you write on your website is left wing bullshit. You liberals need to leave good people like Tom Delay alone and focus on making this country a better place, instead of always tearing people down. If you were half the man and had half the integrity of Tom Delay or President Bush, your site might actually be worth reading.

I think that last part actually qualifies as a math problem. Let's see half the man with half the integrity would make me an incredibly unethical hermaphrodite? The thing I love about this type of email is that they almost always point out the my site sucks, my opinions suck, my research sucks, and then they a) take the time to read my shit every day and b) take the time to write an email, because they think I care. If you think Tom DeLay is a "good" and ethical person, your problems extend far beyond the kind of support I can offer through this site. Try inpatient mental health treatment.

Another reader raises an excellent point:

Ryan, I read your site from time to time, but lately I have been frustrated by the amount of partisanship you've composed, particularly about the issues of eliminating the Senate filibuster and Bush's judicial nominations. You criticize the Republicans for being partisan, but isn't that sort of grouping, in and of itself, a partisan statement? Try harder to be a little bit more objective.

First of all, go back and read the initial series of postings on this issue, and you will see that I have praised Republicans, like Chuck Hagel and John McCain, who have not given in to the pressure their party puts on them to consider the nuclear option. Additionally, the purpose of this site is not journalism or reporting or anything else that should be confused with objectivity. If you're coming here for news, we've got bigger problems than my lack of objectivity. Can I recommend MSNBC or CNN for those of you who need fake objectivity?

The bottom line is that this site was never intended to be objective. It's a place for me and others to share their opinions. We can debate the issue of objectivity in the media all day long, I personally think it's just as lacking from most major news outlets, but of the very few rules on this website that truly exist, one is that I promise not to be objective. I promise to be biased as hell towards whatever I think is right. Political discussions involving objectivity are complete and total bullshit, because no one feels passionately enough to have an opinion. Either be a brave enough person to share your opinion or go to another website, like this one, which is definitely cooler than Pat Sajak's website, and might even be more objective than this one.

6 months and counting....

This week makes it official: Ryan the Angry Midget blog has been going for 6 months. I wasn't sure initially if I would keep it going this long, and who knows if I will make it to a year in November. I am going to keep writing as long as people continue to come to the site, and as long as I still have something to write about. If I reach a point where I feel like I can't keep updating on a regular basis with quality posts, I will probably stop. No sense in trying to be like Motley Crue, and just keep churning out crap for the sake of having something to do.

Here are some statistics for the site that I compiled:

Average number of unique hits per week (November 2004) - 15
Average number of unique hits per week (April 2005) - 150

Most common search term (that people enter into a search engine and end up here either on purpose or by accident): angry midget
Second most common search term: midget porn

Average number of emails received daily (November 2004) - 3
Average number of emails received daily (April 2004)- 20

Number of posts since November 1, 2004 (including this one) - 110
Number of comments since November 1, 2004 - 350
Number of unique visitors since November 1, 2004 - 4,000

We have had at least 5 visitors from every time zone on earth. The most common time zone is Central Time US, followed by Pacific, Eastern and Mountain. The most common non-American time zone is whatever covers England.

Most of you (97%) use a Windows Operating System and Internet Explorer to view this page.

The average length of time a person spends on this page is 2 minutes and 15 seconds.

Thanks for making this site more popular and interactive than I could have ever hoped. Raise a glass to the next 6 months, and maybe even beyond.

Conclusion: Implications for 2006/2008 Elections

Finally, I wanted to discuss what impact the Republican President and Congress have had on their own prospects for retaining their political advantage in 2006 Midterm Elections and the 2008 Race for the White House. In earlier posts, I discussed how the Republicans have squandered a key political opportunity on a variety of issues and how the Democratic minority should be proud of what they have accomplished in terms of opposition, particularly since a united Republican party could have changed the entire face of the country. Now, the question remains, what impact will the lack of achievement by the Republicans have on their prospects for re-election.

First of all, I think it's important to say that 2006 will not bring about gigantic shifts in the composition of Congress. I do predict that based on events of ethical concern with Tom DeLay, Congresses involvement in the judicial process of Terri Schaivo, and a lack of action on key issues like Social Security and Abortion, neither party is on safe ground. While Republicans continue to spend like drunken sailors and circumvent judicial authority, Democrats have done little in terms of progressive cooperation. Both parties could have seriously pissed off their respective bases and I think 2006 will be as interesting of a Midterm Election as we've had since 1994.

The Presidential Election in 2008 is where I think Republicans could run into some trouble, based on the actions of the past 6 months. President Bush won't be running again, which means Republicans have to find someone who can appease the growing number of hardliners from the religious right, and still capture a large portion of party moderates. Republicans are quickly losing credibility on issues like abortion, as they have had the political power for some time to make it completely illegal, but have yet to do so. From a policy standpoint, Republicans have done very little to push forward the agenda of the far right, and that segment of the Republican party is hungry for power.

According to The Polling Report among registered voters who identify themselves as being either Democrat or Republican, each party's leading candidates are Hillary Clinton and John Kerry for the Democrats and John McCain and Rudy Guiliani for the Republicans. Neither McCain nor Guiliani really represents the far right. Both are moderate Republicans, which might be why a populist survey puts them at the forefront.

Republicans have some difficult choices to make when it comes to selecting a Presidential candidate in 2008. Picking someone close to the middle may provide a party victory, but may alienate Evangelical Christians and those who want a President who has accepted Jesus Christ as his or her personal savior. 2008 will give us a chance to see if Evangelicals put their money where their mouths are politically. If you eliminate our born-again President from the equation, neither Democrats or Republicans offer a moral base that Evangelicals can stand behind with their black and white perceptions of moral issues.

If Evangelical Christians support Guiliani or McCain, they're truly political sell-outs with no true political agenda. What I predict may actually occur, and what I hope will occur for the sake of the few reasonable Republican friends that I have, is that Evangelical Christians will break away from the Republican party, and form their own fundamentalist party, instead of using Republican power to push their minority agenda on the rest of us. I've said all along that Evangelical Christians are political whores in the truest sense of the word, but it would benefit Republicans to drop this baggage or be forced to share responsibility for the world's next fascist regime.