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.

Demise of GOP Power Part III: The Strong Democratic Minority

The Republicans have found themselves in a political quagmire in recent months. The paradise that was Bush's Inauguration sponsored by Citibank, Bank of America, Texaco, Amaco, and Shell, seems like a distant memory. When you have a majority in both houses of Congress, the White House, and a conservative-friendly majority on the Supreme Court, anyone should be able to get things done. Somehow, the Republicans have screwed this up.

But as Mister Bling mentioned in his comments yesterday, the purpose of our discussion is not simply to point out that the Republicans' agenda has been an abysmal failure. What are the Democrats doing these days? After all, there are two whole parties in our political system that's meant to represent our entire country of 600 million people.

Mister Bling and others have expressed concern that the Democrats haven't really been doing anything to put themselves in a better position, given this series of missed opportunities for Republicans. On this point, I will disagree. While I think the Democrats have many things that need to be accomplished in getting our country headed in the right direction, I am particularly proud of the Democratic minority delegations in each house of Congress, that have created some serious headaches for Republicans, despite what looked like a very very bad situation in January.

In the House of Representatives, Democratic members of the House Ethics Committee basically forced the committee to a grinding halt after Republican members of the House pushed through rule changes that would have spared Tom DeLay an ethics investigation. Nancy Pelosi deserves high marks for her ability to bring the issue to the media, exert pressure on House Republicans, and force them to play by the rules. Republicans acted like there was some giant conspiracy against DeLay from the left, but if DeLay is innocent, why change the rules to avoid an ethics investigation? If DeLay is innocent wouldn't you WANT an investigation to clear his name? Public opinion on this issue shows that most people agree with the Democrats and want DeLay to go through an ethics investigation. Check out this link for recent polling data.

In the Senate, Democrats have held their ground on protecting the filibuster, again with strong support from the general public. Harry Reid (D- NV) has done an outstanding job clarifying the mess Bill Frist and other Senate Republicans have made of the issue of Bush's judicial appointments. As we pointed out earlier in the week, Bush has had no problem getting the vast majority of his judicial nominees appointed through the Senate Judiciary Committee. Fortunately, public polls cited above show that the general public understands that the Democrats are not doing anything that is historically unprecendented by threatening to filibuster certain judicial nominations. The public also understands that Senate Democrats are doing the right thing by blocking some of Bush's nominees.

Frist and other Senate Republicans have painted a picture as though this is an extreme measure, and that the Democrats are being unreasonably difficult, but the irony is that the Republicans are the ones who wish to change the rules to push through their nominations. YOu decide which seems more extreme.

I'm not trying to paint a partisan picture here and tell you that the Democrats can do no wrong, and that all Senate Republicans are to blame for their present problems. Reasonable Republicans, such as John McCain and Chuck Hagel, have spoken out in favor of compromise and against eliminating the filibuster. What seemed like a certainty only a few weeks ago, has dwindled into a PR problem, and all because the Democrats aren't bending over and taking this abuse.

The Democrats do, however, need to strengthen their political "vision" or mission. From a policy standpoint, many of their legislative ideas have been lost in the shuffle. Several months ago, we discussed the Democratic alternatives to President Bush's Social Security Reform Plan. We've heard nothing of those proposals, and the Democrats need to define what they can do for the country, instead of just opposing what Republicans have proposed. There are good ideas out there from both Democrats and Republicans, including some bipartisan plans. The Democrats should focus more attention on those alternatives, so the American public can understand that they do have some choices, aside from being with the President or against him.

Demise of GOP Power Part II: Selling out Your Base

I'm going to be writing a series of discussions this week about how the Republicans have squandered a key political opportunity, and what impact this will likely have in the 2006 Midterm Congressional Elections and 2008 Congressional and Presidential Elections. Read Part I below for the premise. Also check out some of the stellar comments that were posted. Feel free to add your own thoughts.

Initially, it looked as though the 2004 Election may have signified a substantial shift towards the right, not just in terms of absolute Congressional seats and political offices, but also in terms of the attitudes of the general public. To be certain, one of the driving forces behind Bush's re-election was support from Conservative Christians, who obviously aren't just sparring with the ATF and suing public schools anymore. Bush himself proclaims to be a born-again Christian, which has become a popular option among those who couldn't get their shit together the first time around.

Despite the President's strong support among those who consider themselves to be Christian, President Bush, fortunately, has done very little to push forward the Conservative Christian political agenda. President Bush has appeased Conservative Christians with tons of rhetoric, and talk about Jesus Christ, but in all honesty, the religious right sold out their values to get a larger piece of political pie. Abortions are still quite obtainable, there is not constitutional amendment defining marriage as only that between a man and a woman, and stem cell research continues. Bush and other Republicans who have appealed to the religious right for support, have done little, if anything, to pay that debt.

At the same time Bush and his Congressional sheep have ignored the pleas of this key group of their constituency, the actions they have taken are far from consistent with their proclaimed beliefs. War, no matter how you slice it, is not something that's easy to justify from a Christian standpoint. Thou shalt not kill is pretty damned unambiguous. Toss in a few ethics scandels from high profile Republicans, and the house of cards that was the Republican's major selling point to the religious right in 2004 is slowly starting to lose it's effectiveness.

I predict that this will have dire implications for the 2006 and 2008 elections, which we will discuss later in the week. Again, feel free to leave more comments about your feelings here.

The Demise of GOP Power Part 1: The Premise

One thing that is tough about identifying myself as a midget is that I instantly lose a little bit of credibility. As comedian Dave Attell describes, if a midget has something important to say most people respond with something like "Is that where the hidden treasure is?" Either way, stick with me here, because I feel strongly on the basis of recent events that this ejaculation of power from the GOP that we've been loathing recently is on the decline. Republicans have fortunately squandered a historically unprecedented opportunity to reshape our country in their own image, and I'm going to give you some cold, hard irrefutable facts (Republicans hate those) as to why this is the case in a series of postings this week.

After the 2004 Election, things were looking pretty dim for us Democrats. The Republican majority in the Senate became dauntingly large, the Supreme Court is more conservative now than it will likely be for the foreseeable future, and President Bush had political momentum, or "capital" as he put it in only the way a true failed businessman would. As one liberal elderly woman told me shortly after the election "We're totally fucked."

I will admit that things looked absolutely terrible. Getting an abortion in an actual health care facility from a physician looked like it would be a thing of the past. Abstinence-based sex education would be the norm in our public schools. Our foreign policy would consist, ironically, of various stages of war and threatening those who don't cooperate with our "War on Terrorism" with military invasion.

Along the way, something went horribly wrong for the GOP. Bush has the lowest job approval rating of any second-term President since we started keeping track of Presidential Job approval. An unbelievable 64% of Americans polled recently disapprove of the way the President is handling Social Security, which is the only aspect to his pathetic domestic agenda. 54% of Americans polled recently disapprove of the way the President is handling energy policy, and 31% of Americans polled blame the Bush Administration for high gas prices. Whether he deserves blame or not for gas prices is debatable, but I can't exactly sit here and defend his energy policy for making the situation easier either. 41% of Americans think Tom DeLay should step down from his post as House Majority leader, given the ethical misconduct he is accused of.

How did the Republicans screw this up? Feel free to share what you think, but that's going to be the focus of my postings this week. It would be a lot more lively of a discussion, if we had some opinions from someone other than yours truly.

Least Surprising News of the Week

On Friday, Vice President of Cranky Old Men, Dick Cheney stated that he would be willing to provide the tie-breaking vote to change Senate rules which would end filibusters and allow the Senate to confirm the Bush Administration's judicial nominees. You can read more here.

It wasn't enough for the Bush Administration to circumvent judicial authority in
the Terri Schaivo case. Now, they're seeking to allow further elimination of
checks and balances by taking away one of the Senate's most important
legislative powers. To hear Uncle Dick tell the story, you'd think that
Senate Democrats were just playing politics with Bush's judicial nominees:

There is no justification for allowing the blocking of nominees who are
well qualified and broadly supported," Mr. Cheney told a gathering of the
Republican National Lawyers Association. "The tactics of the last few years, I
believe, are inexcusable. "If the Senate majority decides to move forward and if
the issue is presented to me in my elected office as president of the Senate and
presiding officer, I will support bringing those nominations to the floor for an
up-or-down vote," he said. "On the merits, this should not be a difficult call
to make."

It sounds like those damned Senate Democrats have must have been pretty stingy about which of Bush's judicial nominees they have approved. Dick thinks that the Democrats are just behind dicks, and you might too. Unless, however, you look at what the Senate Democrats' actual record of approval has been for Bush's judicial nominees. For clarification, we turn to CNN.com:

According to the Web site of the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Policy,
Bush has nominated 34 people for appeals courts, and 18 of them have been
confirmed. Of his 97 nominations for district courts, 88 were confirmed.

Ok, let's do some math: (97+34 = 131) (18+88 =106) 106/131 = (carry the cranky old bastard) = 81%. Looks like the Senate has confirmed 81% of Bush judicial nominees during his first term. I would say that's pretty damned fair. According to another CNN report, which quotes California Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer Bush has had about 98% of his total judicial nominees approved by the Senate. The article also points out that during the Clinton Administration, Senate Republicans blocked over 60 of Clinton's judicial nominees.

It's just another day in Washington with our two parties pointing fingers and blaming each other for everything, but it's more than just a little bit irritating that with somewhere between 80-98% of Bush's judicial nominees being accepted by the Senate, that Republicans are still considering eliminating the filibuster.

Republicans have talked for a long time about limiting the power of the federal government. Libertarian-leaners in the Republican party have to be completely pissed off about the recent turn of events, where Republicans, realizing that they control the federal government have dabbled in everything from Terri Schaivo's rights to judicial process to making the executive branch the governmental equivalent of Barry Bonds on a steroid rage. Events like this add to my theory that the Republican Party is going to face some difficult decisions about the direction of the party in the years ahead.

DeLay Angry at "Judicial Activists"; No Comment on Impending Ethics Probe

Tom DeLay can't get enough of the spotlight these days. During the Terri Schaivo struggle, Tom was there to make sure that we understood that Michael Schaivo and the federal judges who refused to hear the case were murderers, who would "pay" for their unethical behavior, as he put it. In this article, he even goes as far as to single out Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy as being an activist, assumably because Kennedy doesn't tow the party line. Nevermind that Kennedy, a Reagan appointee, is one of the only sane Republicans on the Supreme court.

Meanwhile, back in reality, the House Ethics Committee has finally agreed to launch an investigation into DeLay's ethical conduct, only after substantial pressure from Democrats. How hypocritical is Tom DeLay? On the same day that he's being indicted for numerous violations of the law, he has the audacity to criticize a Supreme Court Justice for refusing to be partisan? What kind of Alice in Wonderland bullshit is this?

While people may disagree with Justice Kennedy's decisions, as I have on occasion, you can't really say that he's behaved unethically. After all, that's why he was appointed. Just because Kennedy doesn't have the conservative pleasing power of say Scalia or the lady pleasing power of Clarence Thomas, doesn't make him a bad justice. Failing to adhere to the law in your home state and accepting trips as bribes to shape the national legislative agenda does, on the other hand, make you a bad Congressman.

Bottoms up, Tom!

Terrorism is on the Decline, Trust Us

The Seattle Times reported this last weekend that the US State Department has elected to stop publication of the annual report on international terrorism, after preliminary results suggest that 2004 was the worst year for terrorist attacks since the report's initial publication in 1985. The State Department defends their decision to eliminate the Patterns of Global Terrorism report, saying that the methodology used to collect the data was flawed. Critics have stated that the elimination of the report, which suggests 2004 was the worst year for terrorist attacks on record, was a scheme to hide the fact that the Bush Administration's war on terrorism has been unsuccessful abroad.

I wanted to see what the Administration and the State Department had to say about eliminating the report. The only justification offered in the article is that the methodology for determining what constituted a terrorist attack was flawed, but it didn't specifically state if the methodology was different than in previous years or what, specifically made the statistics so inaccurate.

I went to The White House website and looked under their most recent press briefings from White House Press Secretary Scott "Don't Call Me Ari Fleischer" McClellan. In the last two weeks, when the announcement about eliminating the report was made, the White House had no comment.

I went to The US State Department website for Counterterrorism to see if they had commented on how the methodology for 2004 was flawed. While you can read previous years' reports, the 2004 report and any mention of flawed methodology was no where to be found. If you're more successful than I am in finding something, send it along. That would be interesting to discuss.

Based on the lack of evidence provided by the Administration and the State Department, it leaves one to wonder why the report was eliminated. If the methodology was the same used in previous years, which we have every indication to believe that it was, the State Department would certainly be comparing apples to apples from year to year.

Any changes in methodology would also be unlikely to cause the report to be eliminated all together. If the methodology of a scientific study, for example, is flawed, most of the time you don't eliminate the research. You discuss the findings of your research in light of any methodological problems you encountered. This can be useful in guiding future inquiries into similar problems (i.e. don't try it this way) or even allowing limited interpretation of the data (i.e. we may have overestimated the actual number of attacks by including men who terrorized people by pressing their genitalia against car windows). Either way, completely ending the report on what is essentially the KEY national security issue is completely suspicious.

Until the State Department or the White House explains why things were different in 2004, we find ourselves without a way to quantify how we're making gains against terrorism worldwide, since they certainly aren't offering anything in replacement. If you were successful in fighting terror, why wouldn't you want an annual report to highlight the progress your policies and actions were making in curbing terrorism. Sadly, this is just another example of the Bush Administration limiting public access to information that shows what an abysmal failure Bush's anti-terrorism policies are.

Pat Sajak Update

As I mentioned in my last post, I stumbled across Pat Sajak's website last week, and he happens to have quite a distaste for the left. And while Pat has every right to his opinion, after reading some of the turds of wisdom he posts on his website, I wanted to point out a few of the many inconsistencies and contradictions that permeate his opinions. For example:

- Under his most recent posting, Pat summarizes the Democratic agenda for 2005: Find someone to terrorize "like they did with Newt Gingrich." Pat laments the Democrats terrorizing Tom DeLay for simple political reasons, not because DeLay broke Texas campaign finance law, accepted close to a million dollars illegally, and took trips paid for by political contributors. Yes Pat, Tom DeLay is only under scrutiny because of Democratic political strategy.

- Another recent post, Arguing with Liberals and Why I've Stopped, Pat blames his friends on the left for being hypocritical about a variety of issues. His most specific example is Ward Churchill, University of Colorado Professor, whose controversial remarks about 9/11 terrorist attacks drew scorn from both sides of the political establishment. Oddly, Pat goes on to contrast Ward Churchill's remarks by comparing them with Harvard President Lawrence Summer's remarks about women's lack of achievement in math and science. Pat apparently feels that Summer's comments are more defensible for some reason.

Both situations represent controversial comments from the academic community, but to characterize one as being more liberal and the other as more conservative hardly makes sense. If you want to read a GOOD article on the subject of academic freedom in our sensitive political landscape, without Pat's political spin, check out this one from the LA times. If Pat wants to comment on higher education, perhaps he should have finished his college degree.

And I could go on for weeks. I could make a Pat Sajak anti-blog, and just respond to what he says on his site, but it's so one-sided, sophomoric, and banal that no one would take the time to read it.

One of the best things about political discussions on the web is that if you think I'm out of my mind, you can leave comments, send me an email, and let me know that I'm completely off base. Pat, on the other hand, simply wants you to know what his opinions are. He doesn't care what your point of view is. I think that dissenting points of view have made for some very interesting discussions on this site. Pat Sajak doesn't offer a way for readers to comment, refute or even communicate about his ideas. Much like the Wheel of Fortune, it's a sad, disgusting little man saying "Look at me, look at me." without any interaction from the outside world.

A message for Pat: If you're reading this, send me an email, leave a comment, or at least allow the readers on your website the same courtesy. Anyone who disagrees with what I write here, aside from being dead wrong, can post their opinion without interference from me. It keeps me honest, makes me work a little harder, and keeps the discussion interesting. The irony is that Pat complains about how his discussions with liberals are preachy, one-sided, and don't provide him the opportunity to share his views, but his website does precisely the same thing. Nice work Pat, you're the recipient of the Angry Midget Irony in Action Award for 2005.

Pat Sajak Has a Website?

One of my favorite things about the internet is that it's great comic relief. For example, you can type "toothless whores" into Google, not that I have done or recommend doing that sort of thing, but you could do that, and it would take you to a webpage or 10 that features morally casual ladies in serious need of dental work. Every time I think there is a limit to what I can find, such as the Richard Marx Website I discussed a few weeks ago, I find something that renews my faith that ANYONE can have a website.

Welcome to the fray, Pat Sajak. For those of you under the age of 85, Pat Sajak is the host of Wheel of Fortune and King of Banality. I've often wondered if Pat is a robot sent back from the future to bore the entire planet to death. What the cybernetic intelligence from the future that designed Pat didn't realize is that he's on a show that only the elderly, immobile, and incarcerated watch with any frequency.

Imagine my surprise then, when I discovered that Fark.com highlighted one of Sajak's political postings from his personal website. First of all, I didn't even realize that Pat Sajak had anything to say aside from "Do we have any Ts, Vanna?", but Pat has strong feelings about Liberals in this country. If you want some low-quality, conservative rhetoric, you can read Sajak's frequent political postings here complete with disclaimer, warning his elderly fan base that they may be subjected to his right wing idiocy.

If you want to read some of the most snide and frankly sophomoric political humor I've ever seen, check out this posting. The gem of the bunch (Sajak's response in all caps):
Whom do you think should be the face of the Democratic Party?
B.R.
Zanesville, OH
THAT’S A TOUGH ONE GIVEN THAT THERE ARE SO MANY CANDIDATES FOR OTHER PARTS OF THE BODY.

I nearly wet myself with laughter, except that despite my short stature, I'm a potty trained adult, and while 8 year-olds might find this sort of thing funny, I'm just annoyed.

So, after reading through Pat's ridiculous political musings, I decided to write him an email and point out some of the obvious contradictions. I will post my letter and any response that I receive to the site. Look for that this weekend.

Bush's Foreign Policy: The Ultimate Flip Flop

When I was driving to work this morning, listening to NPR like a good commie pinko nutbag, I heard about the car bombing in Iraq that an insurgency group linked to al Quida has subsequently taken responsibility for. 18 people were killed, mostly Iraqi civilians. Aside from being sad, the whole event got me thinking about what the hell American is still doing in Iraq. The Bush Administration has offered numerous justifications for the invasion and occupation of Iraq, but none of them hold up under scrutiny.

Iraq has weapons of mass destruction or programs to develop weapons of mass destruction. Fortunately, this one has been put completely to rest. Not only did the invasion of Iraq reveal that there was no immanent threat of Iraq using weapons of mass destruction against its neighbors, but the intelligence that supported that conclusion has been determined to be completely flawed.

The Bush Administration talks about Iraq's links to terrorism as a justification for invading to overthrow Saddam Hussein. The irony on this point, which is further emphasized by today's car bombings, is that Iraq has become a haven for terrorist as a direct result of our military action. The presence of Muslim people by itself does not a haven for terrorists make. Invading a sovereign nation unilaterally under completely false pretences might, on the other hand, seriously pisses off terrorists and allows even moderate Muslims, who might otherwise be at least neutral, to align themselves with terrorist causes.

The final justification given by the hawks in the Bush Administration was that diplomacy was not an option when faced with the threats of weapons of mass destruction. Recent statements by the President about Iran, a country with known nuclear weapons program, contradict that position completely. Check out this article for details. It contains one of the most ironic and hilarious quotes of White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan's career:

"We want to see this resolved through the diplomatic efforts of the Europeans. We want to see it resolved in a peaceful way," McClellan told reporters on Wednesday."

Add that to the list of things I never thought I'd hear from the Bush Administration regarding foreign policy.

The Bush Administration's handling of the Iran situation is the appropriate one. However, such action, given the fact that Iran has a nuclear program, which is more than Iraq had when we invaded them, is the ultimate flip flop. Some may choose to argue that Iran and Iraq are completely different countries with different leaders and divergent agendas, which is partially true.

However, the fact that the Bush Administration handled Iraq with force and Iran with the soft touch of diplomacy reveals the gigantic contradiction that is the Bush foreign and military policy. Essentially, all the reasons we had to invade Iraq without cooperation from the United Nations were bunk. Iran is a country with far more threat and capability than Iraq did prior to our invasion, but apparently diplomacy is the answer in this case.

DeLay's Defense: Democrats are to Blame

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay wants you to know what's behind the recent campaign finance and ethics scandals he faces: Democrats. In a meeting with Republican party leaders on Tuesday, (as highlighted here) DeLay's comments include:

Giving a preview of the approach he is likely to take when he appears before
reporters this afternoon, DeLay dismissed questions about his travel and his
relationships with lobbyists as "the Democratic agenda." Attendees said DeLay, in extremely brief remarks, told the senators that, if asked about his predicament, they should blame Democrats and their lack of an agenda.

Wow! Was it the lack of a Democratic Agenda that forced DeLay's wife and daughter to take almost a million dollars from political donors? It's a vast left-wing conspiracy that DeLay is facing numerous questions about his ethical conduct. Obviously.

Those of you who have been following the discussions over at World Debate are intimately familiar with this sort of response from the right. When the discussion turns to anything remotely critical of conservative policies or actions, rather than engaging in discussion to clarify their position, Republicans blame Democrats for being disruptive and uncooperative.

DeLay has a difficult fight ahead of him as political pressure builds even from within his own party. If requiring the House Majority Leader to follow federal law and behave in an ethical manner is considered a left-wing conspiracy, I think we need more conspiracies like them. DeLay's hubris will surely be his undoing.

A word from Mister Bling

Every now and then, one of the people who reads this site posts something that's 10 times better than how I could have stated it. Mister Bling's comments today under my last post are so on the mark, no pun there, I had to post them so more people would have a chance to read them.

Something else to keep in mind (in regards to the Midget's last paragraph):

Right-wing radio hosts like Michael Savage and Rush Limbaugh seem to believe that the world would be a better place if everyone on it were as conservative as they are. And yet they seem to forget about how the entire world needs checks and balances. When one side has more power than the other, they use that power more and more to force their will upon everyone else. We see the proof of this now, with the Republicans getting involved with our personal lives (Schaivo, gay marriage, the Patriot Act). When they're not in power, all they say is, 'We need less government in our lives.' But since they've been in power, when was the last time you actually heard a Republican say those words?And I'm not specifically blaming Republicans, because Democrats will do it when in control as well. It's human nature. If there's a Republican in the White House, there should be a Democrat-controlled Congress, or vice-versa. Gridlock is better than one side running amok and unchecked.

And while I'm at it (I guess I should start my own blog?) .... can Tom DeLay be more crooked? He continues to blame the liberal media, but did he read the scathing op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal last week? So what does he do? He goes back to blaming our 'out-of-control' judicial system. I'm getting really tired of this guy, and I hope the left rallies around this and uses it to gain some political ground. Honestly, there is NO defense for what he's done. The only defense right-wing talk radio has right now (and they keep going to it over and over again, trust me) is, "He's not the only one to have given money to family members under the guise of working on a campaign!" And they leave it at that. Never mind the fact that what he did was wrong. Never mind the fact that he played the self-righteous card on the Schaivo case, but 'pulled the plug' on his father 17 years ago. Never mind the fact that he gerrymandered districts in Texas for no other reason but to gain more seats in the House.

A Closer Look at How Americans Actually Feel About Terri Schaivo

I made it back safely from skiing in Colorado. For those of you who didn't hear about the storm, click here . At least we were there on a ski trip.

While I was gone, I received a great heads up from Mister Bling. Fortunately, the media feeding frenzy surrounding Terri Schaivo has died down, no pun intended. Mister Bling pointed out in his message that The Polling Report has some stellar polls from a variety of sources concerning public opinions about Schaivo's fate. The results give me confidence that the vast majority of Americans are compassionate, caring and reasonable people. I am tired of the media and many conservative blogs presenting Schaivo's case from only their perspective, as though the vast majority of Americans disagreed with Michael Schaivo's wishes to disconnect his wife's feeding tube.

In reality, the majority of Americans feel that President Bush and Congress overstepped their authority by circumventing judicial process. More Americans would have sided with Michael Schaivo than the Schindler family when presented with similar decisions in their own lives. To hear the media and the conservative echo chambers on the web explain it, you would think that this was not the case. But, it appears there is hope out there after all.

The most interesting point I have heard made regarding the political turn of events surrounding Schaivo's medical care was an explanation from a good friend who said "Conservatives were completely in favor of a small federal government with limited powers, until they were able to control the federal government." I couldn't have stated it better myself.

Ski Bonanza 2005

For those of you who have procrastinated going skiing like I have this year, this weekend marks an opportunity to make it right. Despite my decidedly mountain-less existence in Nebraska, a group of high quality individuals from all over the country will decend on Winter Park, CO this weekend for some skiing, boozing, and mischief. If you're in the area, watch out for dancing midgets, men in drag, and flying beer bottles.

For more information on Winter Park, click here www.skiwinterpark.com

No Child Left Behind Lawsuits

When liberals and conservatives have discussions about President Bush's No Child Left Behind policy, it can be difficult to find a basis for a discussion. No Child Left Behind is a classic example of a bad government policy that's difficult to pin down, because the specifics of the plan and how it appears on paper are very different from the policy's actual incarnation. More accountability for public schools, increased funding, and standardized testing all sound like positive steps in improving education, but as we're watching the issue develop in real life, reality is much harsher.
The NY Times has a interesting article about a trend that has been a direct result of No Child Left Behind (NCLB): local school districts filing suit against the federal government for an unfunded mandate. School districts in Texas and Illinois have already filed suits against the federal government on the basis that NCLB requires annual standardized testing without providing funding to support that requirement. The Times article highlights that Connecticut will be the first state to sue the federal government over the testing mandate.

Connecticut has been a leader in education with standardized testing every other year since 1984, but found itself recently at odds with NCLB, which requires annual testing. NCLB would require Connecticut to spend $112.2 million expanding their educational testing programs while providing just over $70 million in funding to support it. You don't have to be a Noble Laureate in Math to see the discrepancies here.

Conservatives would say that this is a partisan ploy to attack the President. Why? Because that's easier than actually discussing the issue. Nevermind, that Connecticut M. Jodi Rell, a Republican, is leading the charge against NCLB. Rell had this to say in response to recently appointed Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings, when Spellings perseverated on the importance of annual standardized testing:

"As Connecticut's governor, and as a parent who deeply values high-quality education for every child, I was offended by your commentary," Governor Rell's letter said. "You disparaged the knowledge and judgment of Connecticut educators who - with the full, bipartisan support of governors and legislatures over more than 20 years' time - have conducted a highly effective student testing program since 1984"

What I find most fascinating about NCLB, in particular, and recent Republican political policies, in general, is that again and again they seem to favor big government programs over policymaking at a state level, despite a long and proud history against a strong, centralized government. Not only do these Republicans spend tax dollars like drunken sailors on shore leave, but they favor allowing the federal government to have control and mandate over everything from education to when my feeding tube gets pulled.

The truth is that while many disparage the Democrats for having lost their way, as Democrats we have to find some solace in the fact that we didn't sell out our principles for political power and to help out our rich friends. Republicans have shown again and again that the "strong core values" of their party, including right to life, limited federal government, fiscal conservativism, and promoting individual freedom are not really all that core to their philosophy. Actions, like passing a law to completely circumvent judicial processes, supporting the death penalty, record deficits, and ineffective federal mandates to dictate the course of education speak louder than all the support a culture of life and control government power and spending rhetoric we've been hearing from hypocritical Republican assholes for years.

Think your party hasn't abandoned their core values in exchange for political and financial gain? Prove me wrong. Otherwise, I'm going to go back to writing about Miss Gothic Massachusetts.

Spring Means It's Time For Beauty Pageants!

I don't know about where you live, but here in Nebraska, spring is in full swing. Spring in the Midwest US means that if it snows again, it won't stick around for two weeks. Ladies start dressing more casually. The smell of BBQ is in this air. Pageants celebrating a diversity of categories start to pop up. If you're wondering how I stumbled onto this topic, check out this news flash.

Torn from the pages of today's headlines, it seems that Ms. Wheelchair Wisconsin, Janeal Lee, was recently ask to step down (presumable only in the most figurative sense) from her post, after the local Appleton, Wisconsin media snapped pictures of her standing with a group of students at the school where she teaches. It seems that despite the fact that Ms. Lee has muscular dystrophy and uses a wheel chair for mobility, standing unassisted is not the sort of message of empowerment that The Ms. Wheelchair America (click the link if you think I am making this up) wants to promote.

I know what you're thinking: He's going to rip on women in wheelchairs. Not quite. We're not yet THAT hard up for material. Maybe next week. This whole interesting story raised an interesting question in my mind. Follow my thought process:
1) There's a Ms. WHEELCHAIR AMERICA? I've never heard of that.
2) What other "pageants" are there out there that celebrate the diversity of America's women?

We've all heard of Miss USA, Miss America, and Miss December, but here are some that I found that you may not have heard of: (click links at your own risk)
1) Miss Senior America - Celebrating women who have reached The Age of Elegance (and incontinence)
2) Miss Semper Fi - Hot chicks with guns is actually their motto.
3) Miss Georgia Nursing Home - For once, I'm speechless.
4) Miss Full-Figured USA
5) Miss Gothic Massachusetts

And there are tons more, if you actually have the time and energy to put pageant into Google, which, of course, I would recommend.

Mr. President, I believe it is pronounced NU-KLE-ER

Did you hear about the report released by a Presidential Intelligence Commission (just the sound of that makes me giggle) that indicates that not only were we wrong about the presence or likelihood of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but that presently, our intelligence community knows relatively little about the status of nuclear threats around the world? Of course you didn't hear about it. Why? Because all the major media outlets are competing to report the least surprising news of the decade: Remember that Terri Schaivo lady? The one that they stopped feeding almost two weeks ago? She died today.

Behind the media circus, an important issue that could affect the lives of millions of Americans, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, is being largely cast aside by the media, in favor of round the clock coverage of the decomposition of Schaivo's body.

The proliferation of nuclear weapons has been a serious issue since I took my first breath on this earth. Back during the Reagan administration, the general consensus was that a strong offensive nuclear weapons program would act as a deterrent against Soviet nuclear attacks. We all remember hearing about mutually assured destruction. Unfortunately, that was back when we were fighting an evil empire, a country with a government, national borders, and cities. We knew exactly where to aim our missiles.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the rise of terrorism, attacking our enemies has become considerably more difficult. Terrorism existed in the past, but not in the organized and widespread manner that we see today. Our largest enemy has no national borders, no single country of origin, and even resides among us. The same nuclear deterrent that we had during the 1980s is our largest enemy today, since the availability of weapons materials that resulted from that strategy is widespread. The shortsightedness of nuclear deterrence through escalation of arms production has never been more apparent.

Perhaps this is why a recent poll indicated that most Americans oppose the development and use of nuclear weapons, even by our own military. The American people understand the nuclear weapons are not a deterrent or even an effective weapon in the type of wars that we are fighting in now and will be fighting in the future. President Bush should do everything in his power to encourage the phasing out of nuclear weapons, starting here at home. We're just as vulnerable to nuclear attack with nuclear weapons that can't be used to retaliate against a nuclear attack as we are without any nuclear weapons at all. If you believe that nuclear deterrence applies when we're talking about Iran and North Korea, I would love to hear your evidence supporting that issue.

Congress Acts to Save People in Persistent Vegetative States (like Wyoming)

I'm sure many of you continue to follow the cable news feeding frenzy that is the Terri Schaivo Deathwatch 2005. I've heard a lot of criticism leveled against the cable news networks for their coverage of the issue, but as I have said before, the media only provides us with what they know we will consume and what will keep us from changing the channel. If the general public didn't have such a morbid interest in Terri's every reflexive movement, we would be subjected to countless hours of Johnny Cochran footage and speculation on Michael Jackson's "That isn't my penis in that little boy's mouth" defense.

As if multiple court rulings in support of Schaivo's right to die aren't enough, Congress has jumped into motion to ensure that people in persistent vegetative medical conditions can remain well fed, while in their permanent, terminal state. I have a major problem with the federal or state government getting involved in medical care. The vast majority of lawmakers, regardless of their party affiliation, are not physicians or even former healthcare workers.

The few that are physicians are not obviously practicing, which raises a whole other issue entirely. Bill Frist (R-TN), for example, is a physician, but when questioned by George Stephanopolous recently about the transmission of HIV, Frist was unclear about whether or not HIV can be transmitted through sweat or tears, despite a long standing medical research base to suggest that HIV is not transmitted through these routes. His lack of medical knowledge and lack of expertise in neurology hasn't kept Frist from sharing his opinions regarding a diagnosis for Terri Schaivo. Frist believes, based on videotapes of Schaivo, that she is not in a vegetative state at all. Forget, for a moment, that Frist has never actually seen Schaivo and that he is not a neurologist by training. You might remember that an entire panel of neurologists appointed by the state of Florida, in addition to actual neurologists that have cared for Schaivo throughout the years, believe that Schaivo is in a persistent vegetative state.

This is a prime example of putting your own political agenda before common sense and knowledge, which is nothing new for Frist. I don't believe for a minute that Frist actually thinks you can get HIV through sweat and tears or that he feels he understands enough about Schaivo from watching video tapes from two years ago that he can actually make a diagnosis. Bill Frist may be a complete ass, but he's not stupid. Bill Frist has an agenda, and the result of that political crusade is an abuse of medical opinion, misleading the public into thinking that Schaivo has a chance for recovery.

Advocacy groups, like the triumphantly and optimistically named Not Dead Yet, have taken the national media focus and turned it into instant awareness for their campaign against assisted suicide. Aren't advocacy groups supposed to choose names that empower people? I'm going to start an advocacy group for the disabled called Can't Wipe My Own Ass, and see how people respond. The problem for Not Dead Yet, aside from their inspiring name, is the Schaivo's case doesn't really come down to assisted suicide or euthanasia. Terri Schaivo is not asking a physician to help her end her suffering, and euthanasia implies that you are killing someone who has a chance for recovery.

The media's coverage of Schaivo's demise is disgusting, but politicians, like Bill Frist and Tom DeLay, and advocacy groups who wish to use Terri Schaivo and her family's difficult personal decision are far worse. I used to use cynicism as a last resort, but it's hard not to be cynical about the media, government, and advocacy with the way we've all handled this unfortunate situation.

Tom DeLay: King of Hypocrites

For those who have been following the political circus surrounding Terri Schaivo and her right to die, Tom DeLay, House Majority Leader, has been one of the most vocal and critical Congressional Leaders making statements calling Terri's husband, Michael, a murderer and barbarian. Like so many prominent Republicans before him, Newt Gingrich and Phil Graham are two of my favorites, DeLay talks a lot about family values and is often critical of others, but his past actions reveal what a gigantic hypocrite he is for criticizing Michael Schaivo.

In 1988, DeLay's father was involved in a serious accident and the DeLay family, including Terri's Advocate Tom, made a decision not to continue medical care for their father because as one physician described it "Charles DeLay would have been a vegetable." Like Schaivo, this decision was not based on a living will, but on previously disclosed wishes of DeLay's father to his family. The irony is that if DeLay would have felt the same way in 1988 that he did today, he would have fought for legislation to allow his father's medical case to be heard in federal court, but I guess the situation with DeLay's father is totally different.

I commend the DeLay family for making a difficult decision, and in my opinion, the right decision given the circumstances, to discontinue care for their terminally injured father. To turn around 17 years later and call another person a murderer for making the same difficult decision is inconsistent, insensitive and hypocritical.

DeLay's spokesperson feels the two situations are completely different because Schaivo would continue to survive if nutrition were provided, and DeLay's father was being supported by a respirator. In either case, the decision is not what degree of care or support is needed to sustain life, but rather the core issue, whether or not to allow a terminally injured person to persist against their wishes, is quite the same. DeLay and his spokespersons can say whatever they like, but this furthers the case for those who have claimed that DeLay is attempting to divert attention away from his impending indictment for illegal campaign fundraising and spending in Texas.

The Religious Right had better hope like hell that Jesus has a sense of humor

Religion, in general, and the actions of the religious right in particular have drawn my ire lately, as you can probably tell from my last few posts. If there's one thing that drives me up a wall, it's people who are hypocritical, and the religious right has been the human incarnation of hypocrisy in the past few years. The conventional wisdom has been that the religious right is increasing in power, both socially and politically, but any increase in influence or political power is being mitigated by good, old-fashioned common sense. The fact remains that, thankfully, most Americans are not Bible-beating, fag-hating, self-righteous creeps.

From the media's portrayal of the Terri Schaivo controversy, you would think that the entire country is reading the Left Behind books and tuning in to watch Pat Robertson be racially insensitive on the 700 Club. Fortunately, one look at poll numbers from a variety of different opinion polls (link here) makes it apparent that the majority of Americans do not feel Schaivo should be kept alive. If you examine how the media portrays the public's reaction to removal of Schaivo's feeding tube, you get the wrong idea: that the religious right is a political force to be reckoned with. The majority of Americans may be less vocal, but they're certainly not less important.

People often cite President Bush's recent triumph in November's Presidential Election as proof that the religious right has a place at the political table. While conservative Christians in this country undoubtedly favor the President, despite the discordant relationship between his actions and their dogma, their support of the President has done little to nothing to move their agenda to the forefront. Political power is defined as the ability of a group of people to use politicians to promote a political agenda. Politicians using your political agenda to garner political support, and then only applying it when it's politically advantageous, as President Bush has done repeatedly, is the very definition of gullible.

The Religious Right Wing in this country have become political whores. Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage? Nada. Abortion ban? Not even on the agenda. They haven't even been able to put Creationism in public school classrooms. Religious conservatives voted for President Bush to represent their views, and fortunately for those of us who prefer church and state to remain separate enterprises, the one good thing the President has done during his time in office despite a lot of talk about God, is to keep the secular status quo intact.

Religious conservatives and the mainstream media perceive that there has been a shift in political power. Reality shows us that the Republicans have done a fabulous job of saying their prayers, making spirited arguments on issues popular among Christians, and doing it often enough to hide the fact that they haven't acted on a single item of the Christian Conservative Agenda. Such pomp and circumstance is not real political power. It's selling your soul to the devil for notoriety and attention, regardless of the outcome. I'm sure Jesus is quite proud. How many times do you have to be born again to make up for this?

Terri Schaivo: Tortured Pro Life Poster Girl

Unless you're fortunate enough to live in a cave, you've undoubtedly been beat over the head with the latest attempt by the religious right to politicize a medical issue. If you're not familiar with Schaivo and the events that led up to this morning's ruling by a federal judge to deny an injunction that would allow Shaivo's parents to re-insert a feeding tube removed on Friday, then click here for a timeline.

As always seems to be the case, the Right to Life movement in this country has chosen quantity over quality. Nevermind that the President supported and elected by this hypocritical sect of bible-thumping control freaks has killed thousands of innocent women and children in Iraq and executed half of the minorities in Texas while Governor. Instead of listening to medical opinion, Schaivo's parents and Republicans want to save Terri's life.

Listening to conservatives tell the story, you would think that Terri's has a chance for recovery from her condition, if only given the chance to restore nutrition. If you listen to the conservative hive noise, Terri's husband Michael is a murderer. Terri must obviously be saved.

The problem with such thinking is that it's not based in reality. Medical experts agree unanimously that Terri's condition is permanent and terminal. In a sense, Terri is already dead. The only question that remains is whether that will be this week or after several more years of expensive hospice care.

When one examines the situation from a grieving standpoint, Terri's parents have obviously not accepted their daughter's condition. To be certain, no one in documented medical history has recovered from a persistent vegetative state. The permanent nature of her condition is one of the criteria that defines it.

In all their sensitivity to the complexity of this medical issue, Republicans and the media continue to paint a picture that Schaivo is being starved to death by her medical providers. The irony is thick here.

Recall that Schaivo is in this condition because of a heart attack related to a potassium deficiency from starving herself. The only thing more ironic would be if Terri's condition resulted from a suicide attempt. Right to Life is holding prayer vigils around the country, hoping that God will save Terri, but if we had left it up to God in the first place, Terri would have died in 1990 from a heart attack. The outpouring of prayers and support has been unbelievable, if only these self-righteous morons said a prayer for the thousands of American's who are in Schaivo's shoes every year.

Regardless of your feelings on the issue, get a living will. The way things are going, we'll all be hooked up to life support indefinitely unless you make arrangements to have someone pull the plug.

Catholic Church Prepares to Celebrate Holy Week with Outpouring of Hypocrisy

Those of you who have knowledge of my personal history know that I was raised Catholic. I was married in the Catholic church, although I don't go to church anymore. Over the years, I have become increasingly disgusted with Christian religious organizations, in general, and the Catholic church, specifically, because of what I feel is a long-standing history of hypocrisy and intolerance. Jesus was all about intolerance.

Don't just take my word for it. In San Diego, a Catholic man was denied burial rites by the Catholic church because he owned and operated two gay bars. The church released as statement saying that the church is not against burying gay people, but that John McCusker's business practices were not in line with the teachings of the Catholic Church. Maybe if the guy's business had been child molestation or bombing innocent women and children, that would be more in line with their teachings.

Increasingly, churches and religious groups have increased their political influence. It reached a point during the election, where during a church service that I attended, the priest came out and told people to vote for President Bush in the Presidential Election. I assumed that this was because of Bush's stand on abortion, nevermind that Bush has never actually done a single thing to prevent abortion or killing living human beings, for that matter.

Conservatives have also made a nasty habit of aligning themselves with Christian values. The problem here is not the values, since if people actually followed the beliefs supported by their religions, we would have peace and a world where violence was not acceptable. Discrimination, war-mongering, greed, and failing to meet your obligations to your country are not values promoted by any religion I've ever heard of. In practice, however, the messages coming from the religious right are becoming more and more hypocritical and along those lines.

If you really are a Christian and you are as pro-life as you claim to be, why are you supporting a guy who launched an unprovoked military attack on a sovereign nation, killing thousands of innocent people? How in the hell do you justify supporting someone who, historically, has been this country's greatest practitioner of the death penalty while Governor of Texas? Because he says that he supports a culture of life, yet has not taken a single step to address abortion.

I have no problem with religious groups and churches saying that they will not support and condone certain behavior. Condemning a man who was obviously a highly regarded member of the business community for his sins, while supporting another man who has repeatedly violated Thou Shalt Not Kill with his actions is inconsistent and hypocritical. One man ran a club frequented by gay people. The other man has killed thousands of innocent people. Regardless of your beliefs about God, an all-powerful and all-knowing benevolent creator would not rely on this sort of logic as the theological foundation for his followers.

Top O' The Morning to Ya

Happy St. Patrick's Day! If there's one day of the year when it's great to be a midget, aside from when they're casting for Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, it's today. It doesn't hurt that aside from a horny wandering Scotsman 16 generations ago, I'm nearly full-blooded Irish. Furthermore, how can you not enjoy a day where drinking excessively is a requirement. We need more holidays where drinking is part of the tradition, not just something we'll cry about years later in therapy. If I didn't have to work today and tomorrow, it might be the best day of the year. Regardless, I fully intend to be drunk at work tomorrow morning.

One discussion that I'm tired of already, that inevitably happens this time of year, is that people who haven't inherited their short stature and alcoholism from a long line of Irish Rogues say things like "I'm German. I'm not supposed to celebrate St. Patrick's Day." or "It's a holiday where Irish people get drunk, not Swedes."

Let me make one thing entirely clear. You don't have to be Irish to get drunk and sleep with an unsavory skank on St. Patty's Day. I'm not Mexican, but I eat more Mexican food than Pancho Villa ever did. I still celebrate Cinco De Mayo, and drink Negro Modelo and Pacifico. People who make ethnic excuses to avoid having a good time need to get half of their teeth knocked out, while some fat drunk guy sings "Whiskey, You're the Devil" and plays the fiddle.

Last time I went to Clancy's Pub, they weren't doing DNA bloodline evaluations to determine if you were really Irish. Irish people don't care. We just want to drink, get into a fist fight, and drink some more. Have a safe and happy St. Patrick's Day, and may the luck of the Irish be with you every day of the year!

Halliburton Contracts in Iraq: Welcome to the Twilight Zone

As we've all come to realize, some things are debatable. Social Security, while obviously a contentious issue, is something that could be discussed from a variety of viewpoints. We've all seen a debate on Social Security on World Debate. While I may not always agree with conservative supporters of President Bush when it comes to Social Security, I can look at what they say and think "If I were a callous, uncaring, and self-righteous person, I too might support private investment accounts, regardless of how flawed they truly are." Halliburton Corporation's no bid contracts to transport fuel and other supplies in Iraq seems a bit less defensible to me.

What I fail to understand is how ANY conservative could look at the issue, and not be completely disgusted. First of all, the whole issue goes against what conservatives often hold up as the keystone of the conservative domestic dogma: fiscal conservativism. No bid contracts, regardless of who is benefiting, would seem to go against their self-proclaimed fiscal discipline. The Bush Administration has shown time and time again that they don't care about saving money, deficits, or record government spending. With all the back-patting and recent fervor over the "explosion" of conservative blogs and the extraordinary role they are playing in reforming the MSM, this issue, which seems to contradict the very nature of conservatives everywhere, has gone largely ignored.

How can this be? Who is going to save us from BIG government, if the Republicans in Congress won't even question a giant no bid contract, that is currently being investigated by the Pentagon and has previously been investigated for price gouging by the FBI for charging the government for costs that Halliburton couldn't even document? The reality is conservatives, and conservative bloggers in particular, are proving that defending the Administration is more important than producing real dialogue on the issues. The term fiscal conservative as it applies to Republicans has gone from doctrine to punchline.

Another issue where conservatives' collective outrage is missing is abortion. If you look at single issues, Bush pulled in 70% of votes by people who believe abortion should be illegal. He's often commented on the "Culture of Life", which I find interesting when one considers his death penalty batting average as governor of Texas, but I've beat that horse to death. Despite Bush significant "political capital", one of the most conservative Supreme Courts in modern times, the necessary votes in Congress, the President has, thankfully, done nothing to make abortions even more difficult to get. A representative of his administration recently dropped the issue completely at the UN Conference on Women's Issues.

Where's the outrage? Where are the people with giant posters of aborted fetae? Where is the fire and brimstone? Where are all the conservatives who consider abortion an important issue, and why are they letting their President miss a key opportunity to make abortion illegal?

Much like the issue of fiscal conservativism, conservatives are showing that party unity and loyalty to the President is more important than their morals and principles. During the Clinton Administration, I was not the only Democrat questioning why Clinton didn't raise fuel standard requirements for vehicles manufactured in the US, after calling himself an environmental President. Similar outrage has not been forthcoming on the Halliburton contracts or the issue of abortion.

I've known for a long time that conservatives tend to be whores for political power, but to give up abortion and fiscal conservativism in the same 6-month period, simply to show unity behind the President, shows how willing the Republicans really are to sell their values down the river to maintain political power.

New Feature for Comments

In the last two weeks, I have received a ton of email complaining about difficulties with posting comments, viewing comments, leaving flames. Some people have even been accusing me of censorship, particularly for views that don't jive with my overall sentiments.

To solve this problem, I have changed my comments from Blogger to Haloscan and added Trackback. Hopefully, we'll have no more problems posting comments, but give me feedback and let me know how it goes. I'm a midget, not a mindreader.

Haloscan commenting and trackback have been added to this blog.

Bush's Media Machine

The ever-present worship of the Bush Administration in the media is a new topic on this website or any other. A stellar NY Times article this weekend is essential reading for anyone curious about the Administration's obvious and deliberate manipulation of the American public through the media. I think the article does a fine job of explaining things, so I won't make you sit through my lackluster reiteration.

The most aggravating thing about an article like this is it shows what stupid, thoughtless shits we Americans can be. The rest of the world doesn't hate us because our foreign policy is like incredibly bad parenting. Although sometimes, I feel like I'm watching one of the nanny reality shows when I read about our foreign policy. The Bush administration is like the incredibly horrible parents that you see every week on those shows, that makes you say, with my or whenever I have kids, I would never do that. What are these people, NASCAR fans?

What makes the whole thing terribly sad is not the fact that the Bush Administration has figured out how to use the media to their benefit. When it comes right down to it, they are lying, which I've been told is wrong, but the sickest part is how much of their recycled donkey shit we eat up like Mongolian BBQ. I actually think the Bush Administration, in all their ineptitude, is doing something quite well, even if it involves lying and creating the news.

Anytime I hear people complains about the media, violence on TV, the quality of the news, or anything along that thread, it pisses me off. The media doesn't just pick things out of a hat to present to us. The media is a reflection of what they know we will watch, and what will keep us tuned in and coming back for more. It's not the media's fault that you can't use the high school education that we all chipped in on to figure out that an Iraqi guy who works at a taco stand in Cleveland is probably not a direct reflection of the sentiment of the Iraqi people.

How much thought does it take to actually figure out that our efforts to thwart terrorism have been myopically focused on airline security, and have completely ignored our borders, funding first-responders, power plants, our water supply, ports, ferry boats, small aircraft, availability of weapons and bomb materials to terrorists, and many other potential risks?

People have accused me of hating our country, because I don't jerk off to a picture of John Ashcroft wrapped in an American flag. I would like to reiterate that I don't hate our country. I sincerely appreciate the ability to write on this blog without being arrested and the availability of sports and plasma televisions. What would make me even prouder, is if Americans weren't so dense that they believed everything they see on the news, read in the paper or on some midget's blog. What does this say about our ability to analyze facts and think critically about issues that have a significant impact in our lives?

As I write this, people are spending hours and millions of dollars analyzing the recently-released brackets for the NCAA Basketball Tournament, but they still voted for a guy who says he's pro-life but has launched a war where thousands or innocent people were killed and has done nothing, thankfully, to affect the availability of abortion, something he has the "political capital" to change. If anyone has an explanation, aside from the fact that our President is a liar and master manipulator, I would love to discuss it. Until then, I've got Kansas going all the way. Go Jayhawks.

Tom Delay: Liar, Money Launderer, and Cheat

Before I start in on the not so honorable financial practices of Tom Delay, I wanted to point out another blog that I really think you will enjoy. Opinions You Should Have is one of the funniest political blogs I have ever read. Let me know if you agree.

From the Washington desk of the NY Times, House Majority Leader and Patron Saint of Evil Causes, Tom DeLay (R-Texas) looks to be in hot water for some illegal campaign fundraising in that occurred in Texas in and around 2002. The legal issue here is quite simple: Texas law prohibits corporate donations to political campaigns unless the money is to be used to administrative costs. The law in Texas is very specific about what constitutes administrative costs. It includes things like rent for your office, utilities, and things of that nature.

The documents highlighted in the article, including e-mails between DeLay, his officials, and the PAC at the center of the controversy, Texans for a Republican Majority, reveal that Tom DeLay may have received direct payments from corporations, including Reliant Energy in August 2002.

Republicans in Congress and throughout the Blogosphere are whining about a political witch hunt and that much of what DeLay is being accused of is common practice in Congress. The only problem with that incredibly simplistic logic is that the practice that DeLay is being accused of is illegal in his home state. It doesn't matter if other people are doing this, if it's against the law where the act took place. It's like getting caught for selling marijuana in Michigan and saying "But in Amsterdam, everyone is selling marijuana, so that makes it Ok." in your defense.

The fact is that DeLay is in hot water, and I personally enjoy watching him squirm, particularly after many years having to listen to his attitude of moral superiority. I guess Tom better start praying. The good news for Democrats is that the D.A. in Austin, Ronnie Earle, is a mean son of a bitch, and won't let DeLay use his political clout to sweep this under the rug.

A proud day for Republicans, no doubt.

Miscellany

Photo courtesy of none other than Mister Bling. Appropriate this time of year, and as news about the Irish Republican Army comes to the media forefront for the first time in a long time.

Yourish.com has a reminder about the 3rd Annual International Eat an Animal for PETA day on March 15th. I have never been one to hide my disgust for PETA, and the celebration of this event is a great warm-up for St. Patty's day. For the record, I have nothing against vegans, vegetarians, or even raw vegans. You eat what you want, however you want to eat it, and I'll do the same. The world would be so much a better place if people took this attitude about everything. If you're looking for reasons why I dislike PETA, this website is a great place to start.

The current topic over at World Debate is Bush's budget deficit. I'm laying down the law and have become the recipient of much conservative ire. Feel free to join in the fun.

Mister Bling also points us to Bertisevil.com, a classic website, that reveals the true nature of Bert and Ernie from Sesame Street. It makes Behind the Music look like Little House on the Prairie.

Aside from the usual "Why do you suck so much?", "You're a fucking commie!", "Eat shit and die, pinko scumbag!" and other things you would expect someone like Mike Tyson to say during a televised interview, I haven't received much in the way of interesting hate mail in a few weeks. I did, however, receive a message from someone who obviously must think they're my Mom:

"Ryan: Your website is incredibly offensive. You can't write a single entry without the use of foul language. The funny title of your website probably means that children are curious to see what is on this page. Clean up your act, if you're such an educated person! Intelligent people don't need to use foul language, as you do on a regular basis."

I really have no idea what the fuck this person is talking about. I'm completely fucking ashamed of myself. Next thing you know, I'm going to get an email telling me to stop drinking and beating up the elderly, too. For the record, I have never beat up an elderly person, aside from that lady at Target, and she totally swung at me first. Crazy old hag.

Finally, for those of you who live in Omaha, The First Annual Benson Pub Crawl is being planned for late April or early May. Details, including a map of the crawl route, will be posted soon. All are welcome on what is sure to be a fantastic, albeit drunken, voyage.

Hold on to the Night

Occasionally, I stumble across something on the internet that is more disturbing than anything I could possibly concoct to put on this site. Something sinister, that represents all that is evil in the world. Today, it was The Richard Marx Fan Club Website. On one hand, it makes me feel better to know that there are webpages out there that suck worse than mine. On the other hand, it seriously gives me chills to think that someone thinks highly enough of this guy's music to create a webpage in homage to it.

At first, I thought it had to be a joke. I was pretty sure that President Reagan ordered all people with Richard Marx haircuts, albums or strong physical likenesses to be rounded up and set free in Utah. Obviously, the dark day is upon us, and Utah finally has access to the internet. Watch for a flurry of Mormon and anti-alcohol/pro-polygamy websites coming soon.

One of many frightening pieces of information you can access on this tribute to the gayest musician of all time is that he's still on tour! Currently, Richard Marx is subjecting the people of Germany to a live Repeat Offender (Marx's 1989 smash hit album, in that, I would like to smash and hit every copy) medley which includes Right Here Waiting, Children of the Night, and Too Late to Say Goodbye. The make matters worse, the Richard Marx "Can you believe this guy hasn't been stoned by an angry mob yet" Tour 2005 is coming to California.

If you need a good laugh, check out some classic quotes from the man himself under the Discography section. Under section for Repeat Offender, Richard explains how he avoided the sophomore jinx experienced by many musicians by holding out good material from his first album, something I have suspected for quite some time. His 2004 album, My Own Best Enemy, is still listed as forthcoming, which gives me hope that maybe it wasn't released.

A frenzied search of Amazon.com indicates that like one of my ex-girlfriend's from college, My Own Best Enemy was released last year, although not from jail. The top selling result under Richard Marx for Amazon.com is something far more sinister than even Richard Marx by himself: an album with a duet between Kenny G and Richard Marx. Unfortunately, the song is not called "Gay Musicians with Equally Disgusting hair styles Sing about a Turd Sandwich". That would be cool and appropriate.

The moral of this story is that like spending a day in Utah, you can always run into someone or something that will make you feel good about yourself (or your lousy blog) on the internet.

Faith-Based Fiasco

If you don't keep up with the comic, The Boondocks, you really ought to check it out. As you can see, it is quite funny. Thanks to ER for sending me this one.

About a month ago, I was having a seemingly innocent discussion with a conservative friend of mine about government support for faith-based programs. The fact that I think faith-based organizations provide important services in our communities may surprise you. The perception that liberals do not support faith-based initiatives and government funding for religious organizations was challenged earlier this year with comments by Senator Hillary Clinton, which supported faith-based initiatives.

We know that President Bush supports faith-based initiatives, as well. In a recent news conference, the President explains how finding Jesus helped him to quit getting drunk and running businesses into the ground:

"There's all kinds of ways to quit drinking, but one of the most effective ways to quit drinking is for a person to make a choice to go to a place that changes your heart," said Bush, who stopped drinking alcohol over a decade ago.

Obviously, the President has personal reasons for his support of faith-based intervention.

Recent events, however, have highlighted the dangers of providing government funding for religious organizations. The President has stated his support for removing equal employment opportunity for employment requirements for faith-based organizations. Essentially, the President wants to allow faith-based organizations to discriminate on the basis of religion in their hiring practices, while still accepting federal funding.

Additionally, the Justice Department recently supported the Salvation Army, when the organization, which has received millions in public dollars, refused to hire individuals who did not accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior. This is only one example of how faith-based organizations and the services they provide, may not be accessible to those with divergent or non-existent religious beliefs.

I completely defend the right of any organization to set their own standards for employment. If religious discrimination is an integral part of the hiring process, however, I feel strongly that the organization should not take public funds. If an organization takes federal dollars, their services should be available to everyone, and not just people of certain religious groups.

If faith-based organizations can't agree to follow these practices to ensure that discrimination is not occurring within their organizations, they shouldn't spend my tax dollars. We're learning as we drift deeper into the hole of the Bush Presidency, that the increasing influence that religion, and Christianity, in particular, is having on our government becomes more and more clear.

Additionally, the surge in funding for faith-based initiatives and services has limited the availability of AIDS prevention, womens' reproductive health, and medically-based drug and alcohol intervention in many areas throughout the county. The fact is that the Bush Administration spends a very small portion of the federal budget on human services to begin with, and to further divide that segment of funding, and limit its use to only those organizations who promote religion, is incredibly scary.

Some would argue that our country was founded on religious principles. The most frightening reality about that statement is the way the current regime has distorted religious values to promote discrimination, exclusion, and favoritism for one religious sect over another, principles that our founding mothers and fathers were undoubtedly trying to avoid when they established this country. Religion has always been a source for discrimination, but with the government's funding and compliance, faith-based initiatives can make fighting discrimination even more difficult.

Unless we can guarantee that faith-based organizations will not use tax dollars to practice discrimination and limit the availability of important services such as AIDS prevention and womens' contraceptive care, we should not be funding them with public tax dollars. Faith-based organizations should be held to the same standards as other government organizations. Unfortunately, it appears that for the time being, the American people are funding discriminatory programs and agendas.

New York Felon Released from Incarceration, Plans to make Quiche

FYI - The current topic at World Debate is Social Security Reform. Feel free to stop by and watch me bring the pain to the right.

Over the past 5 months, things haven't been the same. My dinner guests seem bored with my entree choices, my floral arrangements seem dull and colorless, even my centerpieces have lost their flare. The reason, however, is not because Martha Stewart has been incarcerated. It's because I have no style, I can't cook, and I don't decorate a damned thing, unless you count hanging neon beer signs as a decoration. Martha has had remarkably little influence on my life, even less so since she's been in jail.

However, as a married man, Martha's indirect influence on me through my wife and subsequently, my wallet, makes her Public Enemy #1 in my book. Why is this woman, who is a threat to investors, the stock market, securities regulations, her assistants, and my hard-earned money allowed to walk free?

The media has even softened the terms that they are using to describe her parole. Instead of being under house arrest, Martha is under home confinement. Instead of jail, the big house, prison, or that place where I was anally raped at 3:00 pm sharp every day, the media refers to Martha's stay at a federal women's Camp in West Virginia.

If I can tell you one thing, Martha didn't just go to camp. Camping involves a tent, 10 cases of beer, and a fire. I've never been on a camping trip where people couldn't go home, someone brought a shiv, or there was a large dyke named Steve eyeing me all the time, but maybe I'm camping with the wrong people. Martha was in jail. I'm sure her publicist came up with that clever diversion, like people don't know the difference. Publicists are apparently a bunch of assholes, who think the general public is too stupid to know the difference between Women's Day Camp and Ass Rape Prison.

Here is a money quote from the MSNBC.com article cited above (my comments, as always in parentheses):

During her time at the federal women's camp (JAIL) in Alderson (The backwoods of West Virginia), Stewart (white collar criminal) foraged for dandelions and other wild greens (marijuana), concocted recipes in a microwave (Little Juan Burritos- Extra Cheese) and even ate from a vending machine (That's what they call the big bitches in jail). She also participated in nightly yoga classes (getting beat down by "vending machines"), spent time on crafts (making license plates) and writing (hate mail to her attorney) and lost weight (from using Methamphetamines).

Now that Martha has been released, she's going to attempt to save her business empire, hopefully without repeatedly violating securities regulations and then lying about it to a federal grand jury. If Martha learned anything during her short run in the slammer, she's certainly learned it's time to hire a different stock broker, perhaps even a former Enron employee.

You'll NEVER believe this one!

This morning, I was looking through the news to see what atrocities our President and Congress have committed in the past 24 hours, and I stumbled on to this article. Talk about shocking news. Lindsey Tanner, author of this astounding piece of journalistic research, is trying to say that obsesity in the NFL is an epidemic! What's next? An article about NBA players suffering from dark skin color?

Lindsey Tanner, AP journalistic dynamo, claims that "56% of NFL players would be considered obese by some medical standards." What she fails to mention is that the most recent statistics from the National Institutes of Health suggest that almost 130 million Americans or 2/3 (~64%) of adults over 20 years old are overweight. Maybe the athletes of the National Football League aren't in such bad shape after all.

The methods of the study cited in the article destroy its credibility. For the study, researchers calculated the number of obese football players by taking the height and weight listed on the NFL team websites and calculated the Body Mass Index (BMI) based on that information. This approach makes two assumptions both of which are incredibly flawed:
1) NFL team's sports information directors are providing accurate information about their players' height and weight.
2) Body Mass Index is an effective way to measure obesity in athletes and other individuals with significantly greater than normal muscle mass.

The practice of exaggerating a player's size is well-documented. Teams often report players as being significantly larger than they really are. An actual scientific study would have actually weighed the players and measured their height to assure accuracy. The study should be disregarded on this basis alone.

As you can see from the National Institutes of Health website on obesity using BMI to calculate obesity, particularly for athletes, can be incredibly misleading:

" Calculating BMI is simple, quick, and inexpensive but it does have limitations. One problem with using BMI as a measurement tool is that very muscular people may fall into the overweight category when they are actually healthy and fit."

In a nutshell, this story was barely worth the time it took me to read it, let alone how long it took me to write this posting, and all of you who are wasting your time reading this. The person that wrote this article is a Medical Writer for the Associated Press. This is a sad example of how the media picks and chooses medical research, and there not even capable of evaluating the difference between good scientific research and what we in the medical profession refer to as "stool".

Meanwhile over at World Debate

In addition to my recent posts on Ryan the Angry Midget, I have been engaged in an outrageous debate, where a group of conservatives is trying to gang up on me. You see, they believe that the recent events in Lebanon, where people are protesting and have forced the current government out of power, is related to the Bush Administration's Foreign Policy. I have posted several responses, but I need some support. It's a pretty hostile environment, and we're not exactly talking about the International Brain Trust. Click here to join in the discussion, and leave comments.