William Bennett is NUTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Without DeLay

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

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

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

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

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

The Blame Game

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why I am tired of Fiscal/Economic Conservatives

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hurricane Katrina

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How time flies....

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

"Did you die in Hurricane Katrina?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Have you considered HERPES, you dirty skank?

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

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

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

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

Thank God for the Energy Bill

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

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

'Cause I'm A LIAR!

Future Stars of Perjury Collectors Card

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

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

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

Guns 'N Ammo

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

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

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

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

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

I'm PROUD to be in Nebraska!

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

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

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

A thought for the day.....

No Oprah is Harpoon spelled backwards.

Scientology is a Cult

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back to the Ice

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

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

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

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

Karl Rove is in Big BIG Trouble

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

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

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

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

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

Great Article on the State of US Homeland Security

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

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

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

Terror in London

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

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

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

Interesting Comments

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

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

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

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

A Message to the Red States

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

Dear Red States:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Author Unknown in New California.

My Favorite Terrorism Fallacies

Hello! I'm Still Alive.

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

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

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

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