Pick Wayne's Brain

We're Moving!

2008-04-08T22:49:00.003-04:00

I have decided that I will be posting new stuff more on my blog's new location, over at Wordpress.

Please come visit me there at http://pickwaynesbrain.wordpress.com/

Just substitute "wordpress" for "blogspot".

And thanks for visiting me here. Please come visit me there!

P.S. There's a really funny video I posted there that I'm sure you'll enjoy, especially if you remember The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson.

Wayne

Joke Time: Classic Hollywood Squares

2008-04-05T21:51:00.003-04:00

These are actual questions and answers from the old, original days of Hollywood Squares. Some of you out there remember. If you do, I guarantee you'll get a good laugh out of these. And, of course, Peter Mashall asked the questions. Enjoy.

Q. Do female frogs croak?
A. Paul Lynde: If you hold their little heads under water long enough.

Q.If you're going to make a parachute jump, at least how high should you be?
A. Charley Weaver: Three days of steady drinking should do it.

Q. True or False, a pea can last as long as 5,000 years.
A. George Gobel: Boy, it sure seems that way sometimes.

Q. You've been having trouble going to sleep. Are you probably a man or a woman?
A. Don Knotts: That's what's been keeping me awake.

Q. According to Cosmopolitan, if you meet a stranger at a party and you think that he is attractive, is it okay to come out and ask him if he's married?
A. Rose Marie: No; wait until morning.

Q. Which of your five senses tends to diminish as you get older?
A. Charley Weaver: My sense of decency.

Q. In Hawaiian, does it take more than three words to say 'I Love You'?
A. Vincent Price: No, you can say it with a pineapple and a twenty.

Q. What are 'Do It,' 'I Can Help,' and 'I Can't Get Enough'?
A. George Gobel: I don't know, but it's coming from the next apartment.

Q. As you grow older, do you tend to gesture more or less with your hands while talking?
A. Rose Marie: You ask me one more growing old question Peter, and I'll give you a gesture you'll never forget.

Q. Paul, why do Hell's Angels wear leather?
A. Paul Lynde: Because chiffon wrinkles too easily.

Q. Charley, you've just decided to grow strawberries. Are you going to get any during the first year?
A. Charley Weaver: Of course not, I'm too busy growing strawberries.

Q. In bowling, what's a perfect score?
A. Rose Marie: Ralph, the pin boy.

Q. It is considered in bad taste to discuss two subjects at nudist camps. One is politics, what is the other?
A. Paul Lynde: Tape measures.

Q. During a tornado, are you safer in the bedroom or in the closet?
A. Rose Marie: Unfortunately Peter, I'm always safe in the bedroom.

Q. Can boys join the Camp Fire Girls?
A. Marty Allen: Only after lights out.

Q. When you pat a dog on its head he will wag his tail. What will a goose do?
A. Paul Lynde: Make him bark?

Q. If you were pregnant for two years, what would you give birth to?
A. Paul Lynde: Whatever it is, it would never be afraid of the dark.

Q. According to Ann Landers, is there anything wrong with getting into the habit of kissing a lot of people?
A.. Charley Weaver: It got me out of the army.

Q. It is the most abused and neglected part of your body, what is it?
A. Paul Lynde: Mine may be abused, but it certainly isn't neglected.

Q.Back in the old days, when Great Grandpa put horseradish on his head, what was he trying to do?
A. George Gobel: Get it in his mouth.

Q. Who stays pregnant for a longer period of time, your wife or your elephant?
A. Paul Lynde: Who told you about my elephant?

Q.When a couple have a baby, who is responsible for its sex?
A. Charley Weaver: I'll lend him the car, the rest is up to him.

Q. Jackie Gleason recently revealed that he firmly believes in them and has actually seen them on at least two occasions. What are they?
A. Charley Weaver: His feet.

Q. According to Ann Landers, what are two things you should never do in bed?
A. Paul Lynde: Point and laugh

Wal-Mart. Always Low Values. Always.

2008-04-01T22:00:00.000-04:00

UPDATE: WAL-MART CAPITULATES! (See link below initial post.)

Wal-Mart. Either you love 'em or you hate 'em. Some people love 'em because of the low prices. What many people do not understand is that low prices can come at a high cost. I know you folks aren't dumb, but let me start at the beginning. A corporation takes in money (from customer sales, investors, etc.) and pays out money (in payroll, vendor payments, taxes, etc.) The profit, at the end of the year, is what's left when all the money that has to go out goes out, and all the money that's going to come in comes in. A corporation increases its profits each year by either taking in more money, by spending less money, or a combination of both. Now, you can't make people go to Wal-Mart and spend money, but you can lower your expenses in various ways. One of those ways is by keeping payroll expenses down. This is one of Wal-Mart's key business strategies.

Wal-Mart likes to call its employees "Associates", possibly because "Government-Aid-Eligible-Hourly-Wage-Peon" was having a negative impact on employee recruitment and retention. Many Wal-Mart Associates are on Medicaid. And because many cannot afford the company's health insurance plan (they have to buy it, it's not a "free benefit"), many go without insurance for themselves or their children. And Wal-Mart knows this. They also understand that because their employees cannot afford the health plan, a large strain is placed on taxpayers to pay for Associates' emergency room visits. And they know they have an image problem when it comes to benefits.

Did you know that some employer-provided health insurance plans come with a stipulation that if you are ever injured, and you receive a settlement or judgment award from a court, your employer can sue you to recover what they paid out for your medical expenses? I didn't either. I know that some very large companies are "self-insured", meaning they pay out claims themselves, and not through some outside insurance company. I guess it makes sense if you're large enough to have the capital to pay for it. And if you were going to hire another company to do it, they would charge you enough to cover their expenses and make a profit. So just cut out the guy making the profit, and you save money. And you can save even more if what you charge your employees for their insurance also brings back a profit, but I do not know if Wal-Mart does that. But I do know that they don't like to lose money from paying out medical claims.

Debbie Shank had worked for Wal-Mart for eight years. She signed up for the company's health plan and, not long after she started working there, she was in a terrible car accident that left her brain-damaged, wheechair-bound, and in a nursing home. She sued the trucking company whose vehicle caused the accident and won nearly a million dollars in the settlement. After the lawyers took their slice, she was left with $417,000, which would be needed to give her the lifelong, full-time medical care she would be needing.

But Wal-mart wasn't happy with this. Prior to her settlement, Wal-mart had paid out $470,000, and they wanted it back. For some reason, they felt it was necessary to do this, because it would not have been fair to the other employees if they didn't. Wal-Mart spokesman John Simley said in a statement: "Wal-Mart's plan is bound by very specific rules. ... We wish it could be more flexible in Mrs. Shank's case since her circumstances are clearly extraordinary, but this is done out of fairness to all associates who contribute to, and benefit from, the plan." It's only out of fairness because you must do this to all of the other associates who win money in settlements - you sue them for it in court. I guess if you let Debbie Shank keep her money, you wouldn't be able to justify suing the other associates for theirs, would you? I guess you feel you can't start making exceptions to the rules, no matter how humane it makes you look to do so. Tell me something, Mr. Simley. If you were to ask all of the other Wal-Mart Associates if Wal-mart should have pursued Debbie Shank's case as hard as they did, do you think that they would have agreed that Wal-Mart acted "properly"? And what if Debbie Shank was your wife? Would the statement you released have been the same?

On Sep 6, 2007, one week after Wal-Mart won the appeal, Debbie's 18-year-old son, Jeremy, was killed in Iraq. Even though Debbie attended the funeral, her brain damage causes her to forget that he is dead. So when she asks family members how he's doing, and they tell her that he was killed, it's like she's hearing it for the first time, and she breaks down in tears all over again. So now she's not only brain-damaged, wheelchair-bound, and in need of constant medical attention for the rest of her life, she has to continuously be told that her son is dead, because she can't remember.

As despicable as all this is, there may be a way for Wal-mart to salvage their image. They may not make people forget entirely, but at least they can make it look like they're taking a step back, realizing how bad this makes them look, and investing some money in order to stave off a customer relations disaster. Here is what Wal-mart must do:

They should send a very high-level Wal-Mart representative (possibly one or more of the Walton Children) to apologize to Debbie Shank in person. They should also bring a hand-written letter of apology, so she'll have some evidence that they apologized to her. Because she will forget.

Give her back the money, every penny of it, you won from her in court. That money was supposed to be for the long-term care she'll need for the rest of her life.

Give her a check for the difference between what she won in her settlement, and what she actually ended up getting. Her lawyers are to get none of this. They didn't come up with this settlement idea, I did, and Debbie can keep my fee for this service.

Pay for her son's funeral expenses, even if she got money from the military. Not that losing her son was in any way Wal-Mart's fault, but it would demonstrate a level of empathy by Wal-Mart unheard of by most people.

Pay for a memorial to her son, one that honors his sacrifice and at least makes her proud each time she learns that he is dead. Pay to have it placed wherever she wants, be it on her own lawn or in the town square.

Make sure that the IRS can't get their grubby paws on any of the money you are giving her. If necessary, cover the taxes she might owe on it, or structure it in a way so that it's tax-free to her. Your own tax liability on this should not be an issue.

And last, don't ever do something like this to another employee again.

In 2007, Wal-Mart earned $11,284,000,000 in profits. That's about $357 per second. The amount of money Wal-Mart was looking to recoup from Ms. Shanks represented the amount of profit earned by Wal-Mart in about 29.1 minutes. That's less than a lunch break.

nwmuse at The Zoo has more.

UPDATE: WAL-MART CAPITULATES!

Wal-mart has issued the following statement:

Wal-Mart Statement Regarding Shank Case
April 1, 2008

Occasionally others help us step back and look at a situation in a different way. This is one of those times. We have all been moved by Ms. Shank's extraordinary situation. Our current plan doesn't give us much flexibility, so we began reviewing the guidelines for the trust that pays medical costs for our associates and their family members.

We wanted to understand the ongoing impact of any potential changes to the trust, and ensure that any action we take is in the best interests of our associates and their family members who participate in and contribute to our plan. We have decided to modify our plan to allow us more discretion for individual cases, and are in the final stages of working out the details.

Wal-Mart will not seek any reimbursement for the money already spent on Ms. Shank's care, and we will work with the family to ensure the remaining amounts in the trust can be used for her ongoing care.

We are sorry for any additional stress this has put on the Shank family.

As well they should be sorry, but I am not satisfied that they have done enough. Wal-Mart demands loyalty and enthusiasm from its "associates", and Debbie Shank gave them that while she worked there. I have listed above what Wal-Mart can do to remedy this situation, and theyhave taken the first step. For that, I congratulate them, but I await the rest of the recompense the Shank family is due.

Come on, Wal-Mart. Just one half-hour's profits is all we're asking here. You mean to tell me that you can't demonstrate the kind of magnamity only a corporate giant of your size can pull off without breaking a sweat, and you won't do it, even if it's to save your sorry corporate image's ass?

Joke Time: The Gorilla and The Redneck

2008-03-25T21:13:00.005-04:00

A small zoo in West Virginia obtained a very rare species of gorilla.

Within a few weeks the gorilla, a female, became very difficult to handle. Upon examination, the veterinarian determined the problem. The gorilla was in heat. To make matters worse, there was no male gorilla available.

Thinking about their problem, the Zoo Keeper thought of Bobby Lee Walton, a redneck part-time worker responsible for cleaning the animal cages. Bobby Lee, like most rednecks, had little sense but possessed ample ability to satisfy a female of any species.

The Zoo Keeper thought they might have a solution. Bobby Lee was approached with a proposition. Would he be willing to mate with the gorilla for $500?

Bobby Lee showed some interest, but said he would have to think the matter over carefully. The following day, he announced that he would accept their offer, but only under five conditions:

"First", Bobby Lee said, "I ain't gonna kiss her on the lips." The Keeper quickly agreed to this condition.

"Second", he said, "She must wear a 'Dale Earnhardt Forever' T-Shirt." The keeper again readily agreed to this condition.

"Third", he said, "you can't never tell no one about this." The keeper obviously agreed to this condition.

"Fourth", Bobby Lee said, "I want all the children raised Southern Baptist." Once again it was agreed.

"And last," Bobby Lee said, "I'll need another week to come up with the $500."

The Assassination of Eliot Spitzer

2008-03-23T14:53:00.008-04:00

H/T The Largest Minority, and
H/T The Zoo

It's no secret that former NYS Governor Eliot Spitzer, while Attorney General of our state, made a lot of enemies on Wall Street. But just how far did that animosity go? And how did a former attorney general known for cracking down on the kind of white collar crime most Americans enjoy seeing enforced, get brought down by his connection to a prostitution ring? (The best explanation of the link that I heard was on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Host Stewart asked Daily Show Legal Analyst Rob Riggle to explain exactly how was Eliot Spitzer linked to a prostitution ring. Riggle answered, "Through his penis." Isn't that how it always goes?)

It was clearly a busy week for the governor back in February. On Feb 12 he made an appearance on The Colbert Report. On Feb 13 he hooked up with now-famous call girl known as Kristen (pictured, left). And on Feb 14, he had a column published in the Washington Post in which he scathingly pronounced that the Bush Administration was taking the sides of the banks in the mortgage and sub-prime loan crisis, and calling them "partners in crime" with "predatory lenders".

Was this the point when Eliot Spitzer's political assassination was ordered? Was this the final straw? Was this why Roger J Stone was involved? Officially, Stone isn't anything in the Republican Party, except maybe their unofficial "go-to" guy when you want to do something extra sleazy, like threaten the elderly father of one of your political opponents. So how is it, exactly, then Stone knew that the story on Spitzer was about to come down? He doesn't work for the government, nor does he appear to be a legitimate journalist, so how could he have advance knowledge that they were about announce? Very suspicious. And, of course, Spitzer is not only forced to resign in disgrace, but it appears he must look for a new set of dentures. I guess Mrs. Spitzer wasn't too pleased.

The media spent a lot of time on this story. One could almost forgive them knowing of their addiction to stories about sex and politicians. But why couldn't any of them see even the remote possibility that this was a retaliatory move on the part of the Bush Adminsitration? I mean, is anybody going to claim that this is not how they operate? It's exactly how they operate! When someone comes forward and exposes them for the lying, scum-suckers they are, that someone is immediately attacked in a very personal way, a way that has nothing to do with the merits of what the person is saying about them. Throughout all of this, I have never heard anyone give a serious refutation of anything that Spitzer said about the Bush Administration's willingness to turn a blind eye to the shameful, greedy, profit-taking ways of the banking industry. Why isn't the media talking about how right Spitzer was?

What's All This Then?

2008-03-22T07:22:00.003-04:00

I've added a few new things to the sidebar. A Bush Countdown Clock (with a link to where you can download one to your blog); an Iraq War Cost running clock, updated several times a second (you can get one of these for your blog, too); and an Iraq Body Count. Gen Tommy Franks said, "We don't do body counts." So these people do. I've also put up the most recent electoral-vote.com polls. The old ones were getting a littel stale. As poll results start cming in thsi summer, there will be updated projections. They should change automatically. Lastly, for about the next week, I would like visitors to please answer the poll question - candidly and honestly. Even if you've never, ever left a comment in your life on this blog, if you've read any of the song parodies, please answer the poll. Thank you, and I hope you enjoy some of the latest posts.

And, yes, I did reset the template to its original sizing. I hope people are no longer having problems with having to scroll so much, now. It was a learning experience, from which I at least learned a little. One thing I learned was not to screw around with the template too much.

And if I don't come back before then, I want to wish everyone a Happy Easter. May the holiday bring to you all that you hope it will. Peace on Earth.

Someone At KBR Must Go To Prison For This

2008-03-21T23:21:00.009-04:00

For ordinary Americans, living in a harsh desert climate is tough enough, though, remarkably resilient creatures that we are, we adapt. Somehow. For military personnel (and, I will state up front, I have never served in a desert clime; I worked very hard to keep it that way), many of whom must carry dozens of pounds worth of equipment (sometimes over 100 pounds), it's in no way easier. Add to that, the fact that they are in a war zone, where it's hard to figure out which people want to kill them and which want to help them. (For many of them, there is the added sorrow that they know full well that the entire premise for the invasion of Iraq was a series of lies, and it does not lesson their burden one iota.) Anything they can do that would remind them of home is always welcome to strangers in a strange land.

Knowing that your needs are being served by fellow countrymen can be a comfort, though many of them are not military personnel, as they would have been in days gone by, the days before Donald H. Rumsfeld's "leaner, meaner, fighting machine" - the "H" stands for "Headcase" - when the guy cooking your food was one of your fellow soldiers, not some civilian getting paid hundreds of dollars a day, if not thousands, to do what someone in your own unit could have been doing for far less money and with far more empathy. Having local civilians in any foreign land serving your food would rightly be cause for concern to any soldier. It's not bigotry or racism, it's the simple fact that when operating in a war zone, the use of local citizens, no matter how outwardly friendly or innocuous, is a security risk because any spy or enemy combatant (who would likely look like any other local citizen) would be trained to act the very same way in order to gain trust. And with people like that, the damage is done before the danger is avoided, and the well-trained ones (who weren't committing suicide as part of their mission) would know how to get away clean. The ones committing suicide as part fo their mission will go to as crowded a place as they can - say, a mess hall during lunch - and detonating their vests, or opening up with a machine gun, or some other gruesome method of carnage. Carnage intended to frighten anyone who learns of it, or who witnesses it and lives.

Anyway, the point is that, as a servicemember serving overseas, you like to think that the only people who don't give a shit if you live or die is the enemy. Not the people your government is paying, with your tax dollars (soldiers pay income taxes on their salaries, even while fighting a war, but KBR avoids paying into the Medicare and Social Security programs by listing its 10,000+ employees and subcontractors as being from a Cayman Islands shell company), to make sure your water isn't tainted and undrinkable and causing disease and skin infections, your food isn't outdated or spoiled, your female co-workers aren't being gang-raped by other co-workers (when they aren't victims of sexual harrassment and discrimination), and your shower isn't turned into a suicide booth. Yes, I said, "suicide booth". At least twelve times!

At least a dozen soldiers and Marines have been electrocuted in Iraq over the five years of the war, and investigators now are trying to learn what role improper grounding of electrical wires played in those deaths.

And Houston-based KBR — which builds bases and maintains housing for U.S. troops in Iraq — is at the center of the probe, with questions being raised about its responsibility to repair known wiring problems.

They will try to evade responsibility by claiming that when they took over the building, the safety difficiencies were noted. But the contract did not require them to actually fix the fucking things, just note them for future reference. Including, apparently, potentially lethal safety concerns. They were only required to fix plumbing and electrical problems "as they broke". I find it hard to believe that they were not required to immediately address the life-threatening issues, like the fact that the water pumps had a tendency to short out. The soldier would step into the shower, turn on the water, and an electrical current would pass through the pipes and to a metal shower hose in the shower. When it happens once, it's clearly a tragic accident. Normally, as I used to understand them, an incident like this would prompt a review of all shower facilities to ensure that it doesn't happen a second time, not when it was so "easily preventable". Normally. That did not happen this time, apparently, because it did happen a second time. And a third. And a fourth. And another eight times! But, please, do not comfort yourself in the knowledge that it could not be worse. It is.

When Army Staff Sgt Ryan Masath, 24, of Pennsylvania, was killed after stepping into an electrified shower, his mother, Cheryl Harris, was told by the Army that her son had taken a small electrical appliance into the shower with him. They lied to her, and three weeks after his Jan 2 death, she sought help from her Congressman, Rep. Jason Altmire, D-Pa. And now, it's come to this. "On the fifth anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, California Democrat Henry Waxman, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, sent a letter today to Defense Secretary Robert Gates seeking details about electrocutions of military and contract workers in Iraq and about KBR's role in making electrical repairs." The Pentagon said that they are taking this very seriously and the Inspector General's office will be investigating. But I have to wonder how much authority they would have over the Iraqis who KBR hired to refurbish the building. They would likely be the ones who installed the wire unsafely. If it turns out that one of them is culpable, will he ever be brought to trial? Will he ever face some kind of punishment?

And what about the people at KBR? As I understand it, the contract actually went to Dick Cheney's old buddies, Halliburton ("Bringing you the worst of humanity, each morning!"), and they sub-contracted it to KBR, on account of KBR is, technically, on paper, "headquartered" in the Cayman Islands. So they are not required to follow the same set of rules (the more stringent ones) that an American-based company would. In fact, in some cases, they are not bound by any rules whatsoever. And did I mention that this contract to Halliburton was no-bid and cost-plus? Not that anything like that matters to Dick "So?" Cheney. And if you've got a few minutes, why not drop KBR a message on their contact form? Ask them if after all of this, are we still supposed to believe that they aren't the ones trying to hurt our soldiers?

Somebody at KBR must go to prison for this. For a very, very long time.

Who Are They Working For?

2008-03-20T21:18:00.004-04:00

MSNBC is reporting that Sen Barack Obama's (D-IL) passport file at the State Department had been improperly accessed not once, not twice, but three times since early January this year. In the first two instances, the employees were fired as per State Dept guidelines. They, like the third employee to illegally access the now-Democratic presidential nominee front-runner's file, were outside contractors, hired to do low-level work. A State Dept spokesperson, Sean McCormack, said that the reason for all three breaches was "imprudent curiosity". The third incident happened Mar 14 (the others were Jan 9 and Feb 21) and that employee is currently under administrative disciplinary action, but that case is said to still be pending, leaving open the possibility of a firing there, too.

The Senator himself was notified of all three breaches only just today. A spokesman for his campaign, Bill Burton, had released a statement:

"This is a serious matter that merits a complete investigation, and we demand to know who looked at Senator Obama's passport file, for what purpose, and why it took so long for them to reveal this security breach."

I have other questions, too. Who were these people? (McCormack refuses to release the names of the three individuals fired and disciplined.) I want to know if they were ever employees of the Republican National Committee. Did they work for the RNC before they "improperly" looked at Sen Obama's file, and do they work for the RNC now? I would hope that they are aware that under no circumstances are they allowed to reveal any of the data that they learned from viewing the file. To do so would be a violation of the Privacy Act, and could land them in prison.

Use Your Ass (A Song Parody)

2008-03-18T00:14:00.007-04:00

It's the future. Sen Hillary Rodham Clinton has won the nomination of the Democratic Party. Well, she walked away with it, let's say. But her problem is the people she has running her campaign. They're the same-old-same-old, and they will lose this election for her if she doesn't watch out. She needs to find a team that doesn't resort to the kind of campaign tricks you see from the Republicans. Otherwise, her story could end up like this.

It's set to the tune of Eminem's "Lose Yourself". (Great song, by the way.) To help you follow the song, here is a link to a YouTube video in which someone has captioned the song juxtaposed with a series of sometimes comical pictures. Much hilarity ensues. (No, seriously, it's actually pretty cool and if you're not familiar with the song - it did win an Academy Award (tm) - then this video really helps to follow it. As a suggestion, open a second browser for the video, and resize the two windows so that you can watch the video and follow the lyrics. If you don't know how to do all that, then please enjoy the lyrics and put on a CD.)

And, as usual, I have to thank Jane for her help with this.

"Lose Yourself", by Marshall Mathers. (link to a video)

Use Your Ass
Original Music and Lyrics, "Lose Yourself", by Marshall Mathers
Additional Lyrics by Wayne A. Schneider

spoken
Look,
If you had
One shot
Or one opportunity
To be president of the U.S.
One moment
Would you capture it,
Or just let it slip?

music
Yo, her plans are ready,
Themes tweaked, coffers heavy
There's paper on her sweater already, more confetti,
She's laughing, but to the staffing
She looks cool and steady
To stomp John, but she keep's on forgetting
What they wrote down, with this crowd's not allowed
She opens her mouth but the truth don't come out
She's groping, how everybody's moping now,
The craps' come out, game's up, over! PLOW!
Snap back with depravity, Oh,
There goes sanity, Oh,
There goes Hillary, stoked
She's so mad but she won't
Give up that easy, no
She won't have it, she knows
There's no facts to these quotes
It don't matter she notes
She knows that but it's broke
It's so flagrant that she knows
When she goes back to this moment
Blown that's when it's back
To the lab again, yo
This whole strategy
She better go capture this moment and hope it don't collapse on her

They're gonna use your ass 'til you lose it, this moment,
They own it, you bet they'll never let it go
They're gonna use cheap shots and plots, make a fancy show
The insincerity grows once in the limelight

They're gonna use your ass 'til you lose it, this moment,
They own it, you bet they'll never let it go
They're gonna use cheap shots and plots, make a fancy show
The insincerity grows once in the limelight

The truth's escaping, through this run that I'm shaping
This job is mine for the taking
Make me queen, as we move toward a free trade border
An honest life is boring, but Super Wal-mart's close to no honor
It's only more fodder, it only grows hotter
She knows it's all out there, the pros are all on her
Post-debate shows she's known as the Hope Stopper
Lonely roads, God only knows,
She goes farther from home, she's no plodder
She goes cold and barely knows what they taught her
But hold your nose cause here goes, she's Goldwater
Her pros don't want her no mo, she's cold product
They moved on to the old schmoe who flows
His nose glowed, he told nada
So the soap opera is told and unfolds
I suppose it's old partner, but the beat goes on
Da da dum da dum da da

They're gonna use your ass 'til you lose it, this moment,
They own it, you bet they'll never let it go
They're gonna use cheap shots and plots, make a fancy show
The insincerity grows once in the limelight

They're gonna use your ass 'til you lose it, this moment,
They own it, you bet they'll never let it go
They're gonna use cheap shots and plots, make a fancy show
The insincerity grows once in the limelight

No more games, I'ma change what you call strange
Tear this motherfucking staff up like two dogs caged
I was winning in the beginning but the vote all changed
I've been called out, spun up, and booed on-stage
But I kept chiming and check-writin the next cypher
Best believe Bubba's been paying the pied piper
All the pain inside amplified by the fact
That I can't get by with my jive
And hide that I can't provide
The right type of life
Or identity, 'cause man,
These goddam new pants don't hide diapers
And it's no movie, I'm no Michelle Pfeiffer
This is my life and these times are so hard
And it's getting even harder trying to keep
And work on my speed, plus teach
A daughter caught up between seeing a father
And his prima donna baby mama drama's screaming on
And too much for me
To wanna stay in one job,
Another day of lobotomy has gotten
Me to the point, I'm on the trail I've got
To instigate a plot
Or end up in jail or shot
Winning is my only motherfucking option, losing's not
Bill, I love you, but this Senate's got
To go I cannot grow old in Chappaqua
So here I go with my shot.
Words fail me not
This maybe the only opportunity that I got

They're gonna use your ass 'til you lose it, this moment,
They own it, you bet they'll never let it go
They're gonna use cheap shots and plots, make a fancy show
The insincerity grows once in the limelight

They're gonna use your ass 'til you lose it, this moment,
They own it, you bet they'll never let it go
They're gonna use cheap shots and plots, make a fancy show
The insincerity grows once in the limelight

spoken
You can do anything you set your mind to, man

I Cross The Line (A Song Parody)

2008-03-17T22:12:00.005-04:00

Well, we all know Rush Limbaugh can be a real slimeball sometimes. I mean, what with the lying, and the distorting, and the racism stuff. And it's not new with him. Early in his career, he went by the radio DJ name Jeff Christie. (Real "macho" name, eh?) And he was known to say controversial things, one of which I allude to in this song parody. (The link in the line is to a Snopes.com article confirming its veracity.) So, without further ado, another tribute to Rush Limbaugh, courtesy of Johnny Cash's "I Walk The Line", 1959.

I Cross The Line
Original Words and Music "I Walk The Line", by Johnny Cash, 1959
Additional Lyrics by Wayne A. Schneider, 2008

I keep a close watch on this hate of mine
I keep my mouth wide open all the time
I keep the mike on for the lie that shines
Because I'm slime, I cross the line

I find it very, very easy to fool you
I find myself alone when each day is through
Yes, I'll admit the things I say aren't true
Because I'm slime, I cross the line

Well late one night a black man called my line
I could not tell just what was on his mind
"Take out that bone, and call me back some time"
Because I'm slime, I cross the line

They've gone a ways to keep me on their side
They gave me cause for hate that I can't hide
For them I know I'd even try to turn the tide
Because I'm slime, I cross the line

I keep a close watch on this hate of mine
I keep my mouth wide open all the time
I keep the mike on for the lie that shines
Because I'm slime, I cross the line

Iowa Should Be Last, Not First

2008-03-14T22:05:00.012-04:00

For some reason, understood only by them, I suppose, the people of the state of Iowa feel that they are entitled to hold the first caucuses of the presidential race, even if it means holding them in the year before (which nearly happened). Why? I've heard it explained by one of the pundits (probably, though not certainly, Chuck Todd, Political Director of NBC News; I watch MSNBC a lot) that Iowans feel that they are well-informed on the issues. (That's not exactly what they say.) John McCain defended Iowa's First-in-the-Nation status among caucuses because to do otherwise would ruin Christmas. Well, I have to publicly question the idea that Iowans know what they're doing. And I base it on the fact that Iowans in the 5th Congressional District have been sending Steve King, R-Mars, to Congress since 2002, when everyone shit their pants and elected the nutcases to Congress.

The Honorable Representative Steve King is an imbecile, and possibly a deranged one at that. I will give the man credit for one thing. He can sure dig a deep hole in a short amount of time. (Maybe Eliot Spitzer is faster. Who knows?) But the things he has said recently have really made me question the politcal acumen of the people in his district. (And, because I am a New York Liberal, I have to automatically assume that the people in his district are no different than the people in the rest of the state of Iowa, so I blame the whole state of Iowa for his continued re-election to Congress.) Let's review some of the things he has said in just the past few weeks, courtesy of my friends at ThinkProgress. (ThinkProgress, where thinking is encouraged, unlike RedState.com, and the Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Michael Savage audiences.)

Working backwards, the House of Representatives passed a bill today "to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to establish a procedure for authorizing certain acquisitions of foreign intelligence, and for other purposes." Unfortunately for them, President Bush has already declared that those "other purposes" must include granting immunity to the telecom giants who "may have cooperated" in the illegal warrantless wiretapping program which, until recently, the Bush administration refused to acknowledge existed (even though sworn depositions revealed the mechanics of how the wiretaps were carried out, by the guy who did the hook-ups) or he will veto the bill. Somehow, he is under the belief that if they are not granted immunity, they won't cooperate in the future when the government asks them illegally to tap into someone's communications, because they'll be afraid of being sued by one of those evil trial lawyers (like John Edwards). This is patently absurd. Qwest refused to cooperate. (They did so on the advice of their lawyers, who apparently were better law students than the lawyers in the other telecom companies.) But the other telecoms were more than happy to cooperate. And they knew they were violating their customers' privacy rights. They only began to have doubts about participating in the program when the FBI fell behind in their phone bill payments! The Fourth Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

doesn't stop them, but a delinquent account does. Shows you where their priorities are. Sell your stock in them, they are un-American capitalists. Besides, if they are presented with a warrant, signed by a judge (not the Attorney General or one of his appointees), they are immune from being sued under the grounds that they would then have a legal obligation to cooperate. And if they believe that they were within their legal rights to cooperate with the FBI, despite the lack of valid warrants issued by a judge, secret or otherwise, then they should make their case in court, before a judge, and find out if their legal footing is as solid as they claim. I strongly suspect it isn't, and I even more strongly suspect that they know this, too. And that is why they are fighting so hard to make sure these lawsuits never see the inside of a courtroom.

Here's what Steve King had to say about immunity for the telecom companies that helped the Bush administration violate the law and the constitution, so they could do something they were legally and constitutionally prohibited from doing:

You know we’re here not really talking about the issues of rights. I haven’t found anyone yet that has had their rights trampled on. Their rights to reasonable search and seizure as the chairman announced from the beginning. As I look at whats going on here in policy, there’s a situation going on right now in New York in that area where you have contractors that answered the call in the crisis of 9/11 and they’re under lawsuits by the thousands. I think we’re in pretty much unanimous agreement that we shouldn’t indemnify them for answering the call to protect America.

I don’t understand the difference between why we would not want to identify an information company that answered the call to protect America. To me I think those are the closest two comparisons that we can get. We protect contractors when they went to that smoking hole in that war zone. Why wouldn’t we protect telecommunications companies when they stepped up in good faith and believed that they were legally operating under the law. This is — where is this first citizen that has had their privacy violated? I haven’t found anyone yet. None have been brought forward. I sat in hours of classified briefings no one even uttered the name of a person who has had their rights violated.

Let me begin by saying something about this "answering the call" nonsense. It's meaningless. It's nothing more than a jingoistic attempt to appeal to your patriotism. Samuel Johnson is said to have observed, "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." Others, like Rep Ron Paul disagree. Nevertheless, it's a cheap way to win support when you can't justify it otherwise. We are supposed to be a nation of laws. If that's supposed to mean anything, it means we can't just abandon our principles just because it makes it little harder to "go after the bad guys" when you have to respect innocent people's privacy. The "call" that these telecoms "answered" was an obscene one. They were being asked to ignore the constitution and the right of privacy that, not just their own customers, but every American has because the Bush Administration claimed it couldn't go to court to get the warrants.

King claims that because no one has been able to produce the name of a single individual whose rights were violated, it must not have happened. This is because the government won't admit that they're doing it, and they have classified the program under which they're doing it, so no one outside the Justice Department is allowed to know what's really going on. It was designed this way so that no one could easily show that they had standing to sue. So it's a disingenuous argument. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And the evidence isn't absent here, it is deliberately and illegally being withheld. The Bush Administration is doing everything in their power to keep anyone from having to testify under oath about what they are doing. And yet they insist that we should trust them. Blindly. Oh, and go shopping.

But it's not as if King had been sitting in the background since 2002 not opening his mouth. He actually went on a radio station and said that al Qaida would be dancing in the streets if Sen barack Obama were to be elected president. Yes. He actually said it. He not only said it, he defended his remarks on Fox News Channel. (No, I didn't actually see it myself. I would rather pour shampoo in my eyes than watch Fox News Channel. It would be healthier for them.) He also pulled the commonly-used stunt of using the word "Democrat" as a pejorative. But does he really believe all that nonsense about Sen Obama? And if he does, why do his constituents keep sending back to Congress, every two years since 2002?

It seems to me that if Steve King is the result of your judgment on who should be writing the laws of our country (The United States of America), then maybe you shouldn't have much of a say in who gets to run for president. You're not, you're not, you're, you're not good. You're not good. Let one of the other small states have first crack at the whole field of candidates from each party. Maybe when you come to your senses in the 5th District and vote Steve King out (replace him with an ear of corn for all I care), then we'll consider letting you move your way back up to the head of the pack. Not all at once. Have to make sure you don't send him to the Senate or something.

Spitzer? Don't Even Know Her!

2008-03-10T19:12:00.008-04:00

H/T to Keith Olbermann, who used this post's title in his broadcast tonight.

Well, New York Governor Eliot Spitzer has gone and done it. He's gotten himself involved with a sex scandal. Personally, I'm surprised. Not as surprised as I would have been if it were his predecessor, George Elmer Pataki. (We're supposed to use middle names, right?) But I am surprised that he would do it. He should have known better. It was a terrible lapse in judgment and, because of not just this but the other scandals he's brought about, he should step down as Governor of New York. It does sadden me to say that because I do like him, I like what he did as Attorney General, and I voted for him, both for Governor and Attorney General. I was proud of the "drive-a-stake-through-him"-work he did as our AG. But I do not believe that he can effectively serve as our governor any more. Not in this term. Maybe he can run again later, after all this dies down.

I am curious, however, not just how they found out about this, but also why they pursued it. The authorities were investigating a money-laundering ring and had focused on a particular escort service. Wiretaps had picked up on a client going by the name Client 9 who had arranged to escort one of the "escortees" from NYC to DC. (No word yet on the identities of Clients 1 through 8.) At what point did their interest in the money-laundering they were investigating turn to the details of Client 9's itinerary? And why did they pursue this conviction, or that of any of the other defendents? Yes, if you read the Mann Act and its interpretations, it is technically true that what Spitzer did violated this law. But you know what? So what? Sure, there are some who feel that prostitution of any kind, even among consenting adults who truly enjoy what they're doing, however perverted it may appear to others, should be a crime punishable my a minimum of prison time. I would agree with that if we were talking about forced prostitution, or any kind of sex slave trade. Those people are scum. But to apply this rationale to your basic run-of-the-mill boy-meets-expensive-call-girl, boy-pays-expensive-call-girl, boy-fucks-expensive-call-girl, boy-goes-home-to-his-free-wife scenario is, in my opinion, a misapplication of the law. And not only that, the law, by all the interpretations I've seen, was an attempt to control immorality. And you know what the dead-and-buried hero of the Republican Party, Ronald Wilson Reagan (count the letters; 6-6-6!) said, "You can't legislate morality."

But you can legislate slavery and slavery for purposes of prostitution. Not only that, you can also legislate it in the Territories of the United States, such as the Marianas Islands. If they want to enforce the Mann Act the way it ought to be enforced (for you can't legislate morality, remember?, so you can't enforce its original intent), then perhaps they should look into the kind of people who aided and abetted the transportation of people for the purposes of illicit sex as it happened there. People like Thomas Dale DeLay, better known as Tom DeLay.

Brent Bozell - Typical Clueless Conservative

2008-03-09T16:33:00.008-04:00

I wonder why they continue to do it, other than the obvious reason that they can make a lot of money doing it. But why do conservatives bother trying to convince people that they are right about what's wrong with the world? Or rather, why do they bother pretending to try to convince people that they are right and we liberals are wrong, about everything? I mean, they know they're wrong. At least, the smarter ones do. The smarter conservatives out there (usually the "leaders" of the movement, many of whom have their own TV or radio shows) know that they are using misinformation, distortions, exaggerations, and sometimes even outright lies in the arguments they present to their loyal audiences. What they also know is what John Stuart Mill famously said:

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative."

So there's an audience for these people (or "market", as they like to say in the business world, where everything is easier to do to people if you dehumanize them), and, as far as they're concerned, they're just providing a product to a group of consumers who want it. They won't tell you truthfully what it is that they are selling, they'll just describe it in terms that their audience wants to hear. "Fair and balanced news coverage" and "exposure of the liberal media bias". That always cracks me up because it shows that they have no idea what journalism is about. They intentionally blur the line between news and commentary, often by having the same person doing both and not really differentiating between roles. On Fox News Channel, Brit Hume will deliver the news, and then he'll join a panel of other commentators and talk about the story. They like to give the impression that they are "interviewing" some "expert" on the subject for the sake of "in-depth analysis", when in reality they are inviting some die-hard conservative to spout off his or her personal, incorrect, ill-informed opinions on the matter. They rarely quote any numbers and when they do, there is often something wrong with the numbers they use. Sometimes they'll even quote statistics or a source that proves them wrong!

But what do they care? They know that the people the words are intended to reach will never check up on them. They can say whatever they want, and they know that their target audience (stupid people, because stupid people tend to be conservative) will believe everything they say, even when they flat out deny saying something that they said from that very studio the day before! For all their talk of a liberal bias in the media, did you know that the highest rated cable news program is "The O'Reilly Factor" (and don't believe Bill-O for a minute when he tries to tell you he's not conservative)? And did you know that the three highest rated talk radio hosts are Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Michael Savage, not one of whom could be mistaken for a liberal?

As for the network news shows (ABC, CBS, and NBC), this is where people need to understand what conservatives refuse to admit: If there's a "liberal bias" in the media, it's because of the overlap in types of personalities. Liberals tend to be people who want to seek out the truth. Journalists are people whose job it is to seek out and report the truth. If it seems like there are a lot of liberals in the media, it's because the nature of the job attracts people who tend to be liberal. Conservatives do not place a high value on the truth. (This is a fact.) So conservative people would be less likely to seek out a job in which digging for the truth is the entire purpose. Conservatives in the media today, if they aren't in charge, are generally doing what they do to promote an ideology. That ideology, Conservatism, is largely anchored in false beliefs. Did you know, for example, that "most conservatives" believe that all humans are afflicted with "Original Sin" and are, therefore, not inherently good from birth? So right from the beginning they're starting out with bad, negative feelings about people. Is it any surprise that most of the racists, bigots, xenophobes and homophobes you personally know are conservative?

Despite what the conservatives tell you, journalism is not about presenting both sides of a dispute and letting you, the viewer, listener, or reader, decide who's telling the truth. That approach takes the flawed assumption that both sides' views are equally valid and that "the truth" must lie somewhere in the middle. Simply put, this is as wrong as wrong can be. Journalism is about objectivity, not balance. It is about seeking out the truth, however bad that truth may make someone look. If you hear Person A say something that Person B flatly contradicts, they can't both be telling the truth, can they? Yet conservatives feel that you should hear what both sides say and decide for yourself what the truth really is. You should even use your own criteria for determining when you think someone is lying. So, who're you gonna believe? A scrawny little trainer, or a multiple-Cy Young Award winner? It doesn't matter to them that the trainer has evidence and corroborating testimony given under oath to back up what he's saying. The other guy denies it so it must be a lie. If a conservative is reporting this story, he'll stop with the he said-he said part. If a liberal is reporting the story, he'll give you the reasons why you shouldn't believe one side in this dispute. But conservatives can't use this approach, because it is often easy to quickly find proof that the side they support is not being truthful (or is basing their opinion on false information or beliefs.)

L. Brent Bozell is the founder and head of Media Research Center, an organization that claims to expose "liberal bias" in the media. Among other distortions of reality, he tried to make the claim in a recent Washington Post column, that if elected president, McCain "needs to call on the United States to rebuild its military infrastructure, so devastated by the Clinton administration." Bill Clinton did not destroy our military. This is a lie and always has been ever since the conservatives started trotting it out several years ago. What they fail to remember is that the Soviet Union had collapsed under President George H.W. Bush and that the entire country was behind the "peace dividend" that we would incur from not having to spend so much money fighting the Cold War. (We won, with help from Liberals like me. I was in the US Air Force and was stationed at Ramstein AB (1986-88), on the front lines in West Germany.) If anyone is "devastating" our military, it's our current president George W. Bush. But will you ever hear any conservatives come out and say that? No, of course not. And they won't say it because it's true and it tends to make the other things they say look stupid.

But Bozell's idiocy didn't end there. He also suggested that it was "good" that McCain had "embraced making the Bush tax cuts permanent." But then he went on to say that "he should pledge to end the estate tax and lower the corporate tax rate to 25 percent." As for the corporate tax rate, why? They don't pay enough in taxes as it is, especially the larger ones. And the estate tax only affects a small percentage of people. Despite what they would have you believe, this money is often not being taxed twice. The reason that an estate tax exists is because many wealthy people put their money in places where they won't have to pay any taxes until they withdraw the money. And since they have an obscenely huge amount of money, they won't ever have to touch it and can leave it to their children and grandchildren. Once they die and pass that money along to their heirs, it may never have been taxed at all. That's why the estate tax is there, to catch up with the taxes owed. In all seriousness, I have absolutely no sympathy for rich people who whine about having to pay taxes. They acquired their wealth because of the liberal policies of this country. They should try to show a little gratitude to the country that helped make them wealthy. And Brent Bozell's heirs are, I'm sure, among the people who will be affected by the Estate Tax. No wonder he thinks it should be eliminated. He must not want his children to have to work hard for a living.

What you and I and all the other people with IQs in the three-digit range and a knowledge of the constitution know is that what Bozell refers to as the "congressional obstructionism of...nominations to the federal judiciary," is actually known by its more widely-used name, "Senate Confirmation Hearings." Conservatives just don't like that part of the constitution that gives the US Senate the responsibility and obligation to give their approval to many people whom the president (this one in particular) wants doing the work of the people. Maybe they feel that the government shouldn't be doing the work of the people, but the work of corporations, instead? (They tried that in Italy some seventy years ago. Didn't work.) Conservatives do have a tendency to favor the corporation over the individual. And it's not like the Republicans didn't hold up many of Clinton's nominees. Besides all that, the main problem isn't that the Democrats are holding up nominations, it's that the president isn't sending them nominees to reject. He's holding out because he wants certain die-hard ideologues to get the jobs he wants to give them, and the Senate is saying no to them. In retaliation, because he can't have his way, he's acting like a child and refusing to carry out his own responsibilities (which include submitting the names of nominees for confirmation to the Senate.) Senate Republicans, who believe that winning is more important than being right, are helping the president by not outright rejecting the bad nominees. (The usual problem with Bush's nominees is one of conflict-of-interest. And since conservatives believe that the role of government should be to help businesses, they see nothing wrong with having the chief lobbyist on behalf of certain industries be put in charge of regulating those industries. Perhaps this is because they view regulation of their industries as one of their biggest problems.)

He then goes on to say that McCain "should call on the entertainment industry to stop polluting America's youth with its videos and its music and on the Internet." I notice he seems more concerned about music rather than movies. If he was really concerned about "the entertainment industry"'s influence on children, then why doesn't he decry the kind of high-body-count violence found in the films of Sylvester Stallone, Bruce Willis, and Arnold Schwarzenegger. Oh, yeah. They're all well-known Republican white men, and they're just giving the people what they want to see. But if it's violent lyrics coming from a black artist, that's somehow worse.

He wraps up his message to McCain by saying "We wait to hear him call for the United States to honor the sanctity of life, the sanctity of marriage and family, and to return God to the public square." I don't believe that any man that would support war could seriously be expected to "honor the sanctity of life," especially if that person supports the use of capital punishment. When you use the word "sanctity", you are ascribing a religious overtone to your argument. If you're going to claim that all life is sacred, then you can't also be putting people to death. That would be trying to have it both ways. And, in the end, who decides who lives and who dies? In this scenario you have set up, who gets to play God? As for "the sanctity of marriage and family", I'd like to know exactly what the hell he's talking about? Not everyone is as religious as he claims to be, so not everyone's marriage was, necessarily, a "sacred one." Mine isn't. Jane and I were married in a restaurant by a Justice of the Peace. Nothing "sacred" about it. Does that mean that our marriage doesn't deserve protection? Jane and I also made the conscious choice not to bring more children into the world. Does that also make our marriage less deserving of protection? And, finally, Mr. Bozell needs to understand that it is not our government's place, nor the place of the elected officials who serve us from within it, "to return God to the public square." Our government is, by constitution, a secular one. If private citizens, acting on their own and without government direction, wish "to return God to the public square," I suppose that would be their ill-advised choice. But keep my government out of it.

Litmus Tests

2008-03-09T14:24:00.003-04:00

Evangelical Republicans are proud of the fact that they give their prospective candidates a litmus test - do you, or do you not, support the overturning of Roe v. Wade? Nothing else seems to matter to them but this one issue of personal privacy that should be between a woman and any Gods in which she believes, and not the government (of any state, either.)

So, why don’t we come up with our own litmus tests? We don’t have to limit it to one issue. Candidates for president should declare their feelings about the following:

1) How seriously will you take your oath of office?

2) Do you believe in the Unitary Executive Theory as practiced by Co-Presidents Bush and Cheney?

3) If the Congress wishes to exercise its constitutional role of oversight, and they subpoena you or any member of your administration, will you attempt to block anyone, including yourself, from testifying under oath and on the record?

4) Do you agree that we should put a stop to the awarding of no-bid, cost-plus contracts and re-negotiate the ones currently in place?

5) If a contractor violates the terms of one of its contracts, will you cancel that contract with that vendor and award the contract to another company on a non-cost-plus, competitive basis?

6) Will you lift the gag order on Sibel Edmonds and let her tell her story under oath?

These are important issues because they go to the heart of what made the George W. Bush presidency one of, if not the, worst administration in American history. (And, yes, you Reagan-loving conservatives, worse than Jimmy Carter. For all his faults, unlike Reagan and both Bushes, Carter at least cared about people.) I'm sure we could come up with more questions to ask presidential candidates. The important thing, too, is to make sure that they are not lying when they answer. (Like Bush 43 did.)

Here are the Correct Answers:

1. “It will be the most important statement I make to the American people. And I will honor that oath throughout my entire term of office.”

2. “No, I don’t, and they acted criminally and unconstitutionally at times.”

3. “No, I won’t, because that would be wrong.”

4. “Absolutely, positively, Yes.”

5. “You bet I will, in a heartbeat.”

6. “You bet I will, in a heartbeat.” [Yes, questions 5 and 6 have the same answer.]

Score one point for each correct answer. Passing score is six points. And while some people would think that getting five out of six questions correct would be a good thing, in this case it's not, because it means that the candidate feels they should be allowed to do something wrong or allow others to do something wrong in their names. This cannot be allowed.

I Know

2008-03-02T22:31:00.003-05:00

I know I may never see
The world in perfect harmony
With people living peacefully
And sharing love so hopefully
I know
I know

I know there will always be
The ones who use mendacity
To put a wall 'tween you and me
And hide the truth we both should see
I know
I know

Life is hard
This is known
But it's easier
When you're not alone

I know there are those who care
About the people ev'rywhere,
About their drink, about their air,
And whether they are treated fair
I know
I know

I know we should be aware
Of those who terrorize and scare
And violate the oaths they swear
To look out for those in their care
I know
I know

Life is hard
This is known
But it's easier
When you're not alone

I know there are others who
Believe the same things that I do
There's something to look forward to
If to our hearts we all stay true
I know
I know

Life is hard
This is known
But it's easier
When you're not alone
You're not alone
You're not alone

Driving Me Crazy - The Pokey and The Gapper

2008-03-02T16:37:00.001-05:00

I have to talk about these two together, because in combination, they often create one of the biggest headaches commuters face each and every morning - the Complete Stop For No Apparent Reason. "The Pokey" is, as you may have guessed, a slowpoke. Now, I would cringe at the accusation that I am a "Leadfoot" (or "Zippy", as I'll talk about at a later date), but I do like to drive fast. Safely, yes, for I do not believe in that bullshit that "speed kills", but a little fast. (Speed doesn't kill, bad driving does. Race car drivers survive fast driving all the time.) I feel that the 55 MPH Speed Limit for interstate highways, which were built when the national speed limit was 75 MPH, is too oppressive. I even think that 65 MPH is too low, but at least it's a lot closer to the speed at which I like to drive. I'm not going to set myself up for a conviction for speeding by saying anything more specific than that. [Now, for purposes of this post, unless I specifically say otherwise, I am talking about driving in ideal conditions - the roads are dry, there is no precipitation, and it is light enough outside to see. In other words, no excuses. None of this "Well, what if it's raining or snowing out? Shouldn't you drive slower and leave a gap in front of you then?" In that case, yes, you would, but we're not talking about that here. Got it? Good.] But the Pokey is the guy who does things like drive 55 MPH in the left-hand lane of a highway on which you are allowed to do 65 MPH. (It's even worse when he's a Pacer, too.) I especially hate the assholes who drive at the Universal Speed Limit of 45 MPH because they're too dumb to read the speed limit signs and know that they can go faster. I know they're deliberately driving at 45 because they don't know they can go faster because there was a stretch of road near my home on which the speed limit was a rarely-posted 55 MPH. People would drive along at 45 MPH until they reached the county line where a 45-MPH Speed Limit is posted, and they would speed up to 50-54 MPH. If they were willing to speed up to 5-9 miles over the speed limit at that point, then what did they think the speed limit was when they were tooling along at only 45? They must have thought it was lower, or they would have sped up. Maybe they're just too afraid to drive. My feeling is that if you're too afraid to drive, then don't. Or do it when there's no one around, like three in the morning or during a blizzard. Then you won't bother me.

And then there's the Gapper. Poor Misunderstood Gapper. Nobody appreciates the good he thinks he's trying to do. And with good reason. He's only making things worse. "The Gapper" is the name I give to the guy who likes to keep and maintain at all costs an unnecessarily large gap between himself and the car in front of him. I have no problem with the idea of leaving a little distance between you and the guy in front of you, but it doesn't have to be enough distance to play football in. About two or three car lengths is reasonable enough if you're the type who pays attention to what's going on around him. If you think the countryside or the person talking next to you is more interesting than the guy hitting his brakes in front of you, then maybe you should leave yourself a little more room than that. The point is, leave a gap that you can use to slow down safely within, but don't maintain that distance even when you do come to a complete stop! When I see the guy ahead of me leaving a huge gap in front of him, I'm going to assume that as the cars in front of him slow down, he will utilize that distance to gradually slow down, as opposed to suddenly slamming on the brakes and keeping a good hundred and fifty feet of empty space in front of him. This, in turn, causes me to have to brake suddenly because I'm slowing myself down to come to a stop at a point further up the road. I'm not expecting that the Gapper is only going to use half of all that beautiful space to stop safely. Where the Gapper does more harm than he thinks is when, after coming to a complete stop because of a Pokey way up ahead, he decides to leave a gap in front of him when traffic starts moving again. He might think that traffic will just start moving along at the same 30 or 40 MPH that he's planning on doing, and that everyone will be able to just move along, but at a slower pace and without having to come to a stop. He is not helping at all. In fact, he is going to cause the exact same thing to happen somewhere behind him in that lane. Here's why.

Let's imagine a thought experiment. You can try to actually do this if you think the results will be different than predicted, but I think you'll agree with what I'm about to propose. Let's imagine that you have a large jar, but it doesn't have to be bigger than a gallon, and would probably be better if it were smaller. Then get a funnel with an opening on the bottom that you would be able to plug something in to make it allow less fluid to flow through. Maybe a piece of cork cut to fill half the hole. Lastly, you will need a source of water to pour into the funnel, like a bucket or a garden hose, but something you can control somehow.

Now, if you place the funnel in the mouth of the jar and begin pouring water into it, you will find that the funnel will fill up to a certain point where there is a kind of equilibrium. The water flows down into the jar through the funnel at about the same rate the water gets poured into it. It make back up into the funnel a bit, but it would still flow out at about the same rate that it flows in. Imagine what happens now if you were to plug up the funnel with the cork and begin pouring water into it at the same rate as you did before. Obviously, the flow out the bottom would not be the same as it was before, and the water would begin to back up into the funnel faster than it did before. In fact, depending on how clogged up the hole is, it might even be necessary to stop pouring water into the funnel in order to avoid spilling it onto the counter. Why does this happen? Simply put, more water is flowing in to the funnel than is able to get past the cork and flow into the jar. Does that make sense?

Well, instead of a jar we have an interstate highway (like I-684, the one near my home.) And instead of water, we have cars. And instead of a cork in the funnel, we have one guy going slower than everyone else around him. He may be a Pokey at the head of the line, but he may also be a Gapper. Because the line of cars flowing onto the highway behind him in that lane is going faster than he is, the traffic starts to bunch up, not unlike the water in the funnel when the bottom of it gets corked. Eventually that traffic has to slow down and not pour in so fast. It may even have to come to a complete stop. This is the reason, believe it or not, why you sometimes come to a complete stop on the highway without any visible reason for needing to do so. It's because someone up ahead of you is going slower than you and most of the people behind you want to go. As I said, it may be a Pokey at the front of the line, but it could also be a Gapper somewhere in the middle. Remember that at the time the Gapper had to come to a stop, there were still cars coming onto the highway, many miles behind him, who were picking up speed and traveling along at 65-75 MPH. They may not even see the backup up ahead but, like the water that continues to pour into the plugged funnel, they're going to just keep on coming. Sooner or later they're going to come up on the guy who's gapping and going at a slower pace, no less. They will have to start to slow down and a bunch up will occur behind them. So instead of "smoothing things out" by leaving a large gap, he's just causing the same thing to happen behind him. He has become the second cork in the funnel. And that's why I don't like Pokeys and Gappers. As far as I'm concerned, they can go cork themselves.

What's In a Name?

2008-03-02T01:30:00.003-05:00

There have been quite a few right-wing talk show hosts, many of them on radio but by no means obscure, who have been making a big deal out of the fact that Senator Barack Obama's middle name is Hussein. And it is a fact, a fact that Sen Obama does not, nor would ever, deny. But what's the big deal? Why does it matter? Of course the smarter readers of this blog will know that his middle name has absolutely nothing to do with Saddam Hussein, the notorious "Butcher of Baghdad". The ones who think it does will never read this. And since they are out of the room, I need to ask you something. What do we do about them? What do we do with those idiotic people who think that because Obama's middle name is Hussein, that he must secretly be a Muslim. Worse than that, he must be a, God help us, Terrorist Sympathizer.

Sen John McCain's campaign gets well-known, racist radio host Bill Cunningham to do the candidate's introduction, and the campaign tells him (according to Cunningham) to give them some "red meat". So he does his shtick on the stage mentioning Obama's middle name at least three times. And then, after all the hullabaloo about whether or not McCain himself knew this was going to happen, along comes Rush Limbaugh to defend Cunningham. Except, he did it in his usual off-handed racist way. He was even a little confused about who wanted what.

Even Karl Rove has come out today and said, "Don't do this. It's not -- it's not productive. It's not going to accomplish anything."

It's -- you know, my reaction is, we're getting dangerously close here to where the liberals are telling us what we can and can't say.

Frankly, I was quite surprised to learn that the far right considers Karl Rove to be a liberal.

And for once, I have to say I agree with Karl Rove. They don't want to get into a game of what everyone's middle name means. Because then you have to get into whether or not the person in question was named after the evil person with the same name, or someone else, perhaps a family relative. Perhaps that particular relative was an evil person. If you were John Wilkes Booth's brother, and you had a son after the Lincoln assassination, would you name him John Wilkes Booth II? (Of course, you're not his brother, so anything you say would be correct, I guess.) Well, what if you had a relative who helped fund the Nazi war machine? Even if you were already named after him, would you name your son after him, too? President George Walker Bush is named after his father and George Herbert Walker, and it is true that Walker helped fund the Nazis.

And as much as it pains me to say it, the president's grandmother, Dorothy, had a brother, George Herbert Walker, Jr, who help found the New York Mets, my favorite baseball team. What does that say about me and all the other Mets fans? Are we guilty by association? The Name Game has to stop. The Right Wing Attack Machine must stop dropping the "Ultimate Fear Bomb", as the senator's wife, Michelle Obama, so perfectly described it. It's wrong not because it's factually incorrect. It's wrong because the intent is to link Obama in the minds of voters with evil people, people with whom he has nothing to do. Nobody wins at these games.

Driving Me Crazy - This Isn't Any Signal

2008-02-24T01:08:00.002-05:00

"This isn't any signal. It's a direct statement. If it's a signal, fine." - George H. W. Bush, as reported in New York Times, Mar 10, 1980, p B10

On most cars that I have been in, there is a stick coming out of the left-hand side of your car's steering column which I'm certain is gathering dust in some people's cars. It's the lever that operates the turn signals, otherwise more cleverly - and properly - known as "directional indicators", on account of they're for indicating which direction you intend to take your car next. And that's the whole key right there. Until you use your turn signals (I'll use turn signals if it makes everyone happier, until I have a point to make), people are going to expect that you're going to continue what you're doing, especially if what you're doing is just driving along at a steady speed in the lane you're currently in. [And unless otherwise indicated, and as will be the usual standard for this series, it is assumed that the roads are clear and dry and the weather conditions are favorable for driving. So none of these, "What if it's raining?" retorts. We'll cover that another time.]

And that brings us to a good tip about using turn signals. There's a right way to indicate to the driver behind you (let's call him "Me") that you're about to turn into your driveway, and there's the way too many people who live near me do it. The trick is to remember what the purpose of the turn is signal is. (I'll give you hint: It has to do with "indicating" a "direction".) Here comes the next rule:

Wayne's Driving Rule #2
The proper sequence for making a turn off the main road is:

1. Engage the turn signal (the correct turn signal) about ten to fifteen seconds before you make the turn, but at least five seconds before you hit the brakes.

2. After a pause of about five seconds, begin applying the brakes.

3. Then slow down sufficiently (it's okay if you have to come to a complete stop because of those discourteous people having the audacity to be coming from the opposite direction) to safely make the turn without turning it into the slowest possible maneuver ever made by man and machine.

You see, it really doesn't do anybody any good if you wait until you've already hit the brakes and started turning your wheel to flip on the turn signal telling Me (the driver behind you) that you're about to make a turn, when the fact that you are in the process of making that turn already gave it away. How much help do you think flipping on the signal last is going to do?

And by all means, do use that signal if you're doing anything that would come across as "unexpected" to the non-psychic behind you. (Me, again.) That includes pulling over to the side of the road. That would be one of those excellent occasions where some way of telling the guy behind you (Me) that he can swing around you and get on with his life would be appreciated. It's just like you're turning into a driveway, except you're not actually turning into a driveway. But you still have to put on the signal (I'm guessing it's going to be to the right), then put on the brakes, then slide off to the side of the road, preferably far enough off so that your car won't be sticking out into the lane.

But you know, turn signals aren't just for indicating a complete change in direction (such as perpendicular to the one you were going). They're also good for letting the cars around you driving at speeds in excess of 65 MPH (and the legal speed limit) that you're considering cutting over in front of the car moving up swiftly in the lane to your left. (Me again.) Now, in these cases, it isn't always necessary to hit the brakes, but you still want to turn on that signal a few seconds before you make the actual maneuver. Again, once your car has already swung over in front of mine, causing me to either brake fiercely, swear loudly, crap pungently, or perhaps some combination of all three, what's the goddamn point in putting on your turn signal then? It's not like you're preparing me for something. The best thing is to glance in your sideview (and rearview) mirrors, turn your head to check your blind spot, hit the signal, then wait a beat or two before making your move. And for crying out loud, if you're going to move over into a lane of traffic that's going faster than you were, do remember to hit the gas and speed up. (Remember Wayne's Driving Rule #1.) Otherwise there was no point in moving over in front of the impatient asshole coming up hard on your ass. (Me.)

Nothing Funny About It At All, Karl

2008-02-23T01:28:00.003-05:00

Well, if there's one thing about Karl Rove that we know for certain is sick, it's his sense of humor. During a speech at the University of Pennsylvania, Rove said, "History has a funny way of deciding things," he said. "Sometimes history sends you things, and 9/11 came our way." Really, now, Karl? You actually think there was something "funny" about the 9/11 attacks?

This has nothing to do with whether or not you believe the government's version of what happened that day (I don't), it has to do with the fact that Karl Rove must be one sick motherfucker to suggest that there was anything "funny", in any sense of the word, about the most horrific attacks on our shores since the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Why would he say that if he felt even the slightest bit of empathy toward the victims of that tragedy? Is it wrong to suggest that perhaps he lacks empathy? I don't think so.

It's time conservatives in this country, of any stripe, wake up to the fact that Karl Rove may or may not be a "political genius" (he sure nailed down those 2006 elections, didn't he?), but he certainly is one of the most inhumane creatures to ever rise to the top of politics. He cannot possibly be thought of as "normal" in any sense of the word. He has no clue what the average American thinks, nor does he give a flying fuck. His whole mindset is about winning power and maintaining power. He does not have the best interests of the American people at heart, only what he believes to be the best interests of the person he works for at heart. He believes that the president is above the law and has full authority to interpret the Constitution of the United States any way he sees fit, including the exact opposite of the plain text and meaning. Why on Earth does anyone listen to this man?

AND ANOTHER THING... "History" doesn't "send" you things, you idiot. "History" is the written record of the past, not the events of the present, or the potential events of the future. Only "Fate" (or, for some, "Destiny") can "send" you things. And I wouldn't speak of 9/11 and what you did with it too much, Karl. It's hard to come across as human when you do.

Bill-O and the Sword of Damocles

2008-02-23T00:14:00.006-05:00

His mouth was bound to get him in serious trouble one of these days, and we can only hope it happens this time. Bill O'Reilly has done it again. This time, the thread on which his career hangs, the one holding the Sword of Damocles, ought to be cut. If only his bosses at Westwood One and Fox News Channel had the decency to realize that O'Reilly has stepped further over the line that even Don Imus did. Just because he's back on the air is no reason not to punish O'Reilly for his profane and despicable comments. (And for all you "First Amendment" defenders of his, I'll have something to explain to you later.) In case you missed it, on his Feb 19th radio broadcast, Bill O'Reilly said the following:

You know, I have a lot of sympathy for Michelle Obama, for Bill Clinton, for all of these people. Bill Clinton, I have sympathy for him, because they're thrown into a hopper where everybody is waiting for them to make a mistake, so that they can just go and bludgeon them. And, you know, Bill Clinton and I don't agree on a lot of things, and I think I've made that clear over the years, but he's trying to stick up for his wife, and every time the guy turns around, there's another demagogue or another ideologue in his face trying to humiliate him because they're rooting for Obama.

That's wrong. And I don't want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there's evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels. If that's how she really feels -- that America is a bad country or a flawed nation, whatever -- then that's legit. We'll track it down.

He then tried to apologize for his remarks with the non-apology apology, "I'm sorry if my statement offended anybody. That, of course, was not the intention. Context is everything." That's right, Bill. You said that you wouldn't join any "lynching party unless" (and you did put a lot of emphasis on the word "unless") "there's evidence". So, to put what you said in another, equivalent way, if there's evidence that she feels "that America is a bad country or a flawed nation", you would feel it "legit" to "to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama". And you don't understand why this is offensive? At all? Setting aside, for the moment, the fact that Mrs. Obama is black, it is a horrible thing to say about anyone. That she is black makes it inexcusably worse.

No one, myself included, who is not black and who did not live through that shameful period in our nation's history can know what it was like to live in fear of having it happen to you or a loved one. No doubt there are many alive today who are parents, children, descendents or siblings of lynching victims, and they know the pain and fear that I never could. To have a black person lynched, even in the public square, sent a powerful and frightening message of domination to the black man. "Do not even think of forgetting your place." (And that's putting it politely.) It was a message of intimidation to everyone. It was terrorism. And what made it all the worse was that it was often condoned by local, white-controlled law enforcement. Sometimes, they participated in the lynchings and help stall ot thwart the investigations. There are many outstanding cases today for which there has been no justice, and may never be. To suggest, even in a joking or flippant manner, that you would have anything whatsoever to do with something called a "lynching party", even in the figurative sense, is one of the most insensitive and racist things one could say. Especially when the person in question is black. And a woman, no less. And the wife of the man who may very well be the next president of the United States. And Bill O'Reilly is not being fired? Or suspended? Or even admonished about his poor choice of words? Nothing? You mean his bosses at Westwood One and Fox News Channel are perfectly okay with this? Perhaps we should let them know how we feel. (Those last two links take you to their respective "Contact Us" pages.)

Now, for all you O'Reilly defenders who want to say that I am depriving O'Reilly of his First Amendment right of free speech, let me explain something to you, and I will try to use go slowly so you'll understand. The First Amendment says that the Congress (not private citizens) shall pass no law "abridging freedom of speech." It means that, with a limited number of exceptions, you can't be put in jail for anything you say. That does not mean that as a condition of employment, your boss can require that you not say certain things in public or as part of your job (such as the fact that your bosses are soulless capitalists who are only interested in making a buck, like Rupert Murdoch). No one, myself especially, is suggesting that O'Reilly be imprisoned for what he said. We just want some kind of sign from his bosses that they do not approve of comments like that, nor would they want to be associated with them and thought of as the purveyors of racism. I know I wouldn't.

Perfecto en Nicaragua

2008-02-17T12:12:00.002-05:00

Years from now, some older Nicaraguans will look back on 2008 and Super Bowl XLII as the year the New England Patriots went 19-0 to cap off the greatest season in NFL history. Never mind that they'll have no idea what "XLII" means, or what a "Super Bowl" is, but they'll know it happened because they'll have the proof. They'll have the official caps and jerseys issued by the NFL commemorating the historical event. How is that possible?

Well, it's no secret that the only way it's possible for a winning Super Bowl team's members to be standing on the field wearing baseball caps declaring them the victors immediately after the game ends is if the NFL had both possibilities covered ahead of time. The team that wins gets their hats and jerseys distributed, but what happens to the ones made up for the eventual losers? Well, for one thing, they could become very valuable collector's items on e-Bay, and that may yet happen.

Instead, the humanitarian organization World Vision made arrangements with the NFL to donate those hats and jerseys to two small, impoverished villages in southern Nicaragua. Once the game of football was explained to the kids (they know "football" as what we ignorant Americans call "soccer"), they were supposedly thrilled. Thrilled to have a piece of sports memorabilia that could one day be worth thousands of dollars to them. I wonder if they know? And I wonder how many of them will sell their hats and/or jerseys on e-Bay, and use the money to help their communities? I think it would be wonderful if even a few of them made such a selfless gesture. Think of how much money some rabid New England Patriots fan would pay to have one of those jerseys. This has the potential to change a lot of peoples' lives for the better. Not that making a bunch of small, poor children happy isn't a good thing, too. But they could have done that with a bunch of Nerf balls. Someone should tell those poor people how much money they may be holding in their hands.

Driving Me Crazy - The Pacer

2008-02-02T17:15:00.000-05:00

Well, lucky you, Dear Readers. Today starts a new feature on Pick Wayne's Brain. It's where I finally start fulfilling my dream of being able to tell you about those idiots out there who don't know how to drive properly. Oh, the things I've seen. Worse still, the things I've heard about. Well, I'm going to tell you where some of your fellow citizens are going wrong. I'll introduce you to the vast array of Driver Types that I've created over the years (well, "created" in the sense that I thought of them myself and didn't steal them from anybody, even though someone else might have thought of them, too) including "The Gapper", "The Pokey" and, today's target, "The Pacer". (By the way, how do I know it's not one of you I'll be writing about? Because I know that you are all smart people, otherwise you wouldn't be reading this blog. And if there's one thing I've noticed about the people of whom I'll be writing, it's this: They're not very bright.)

A Pacer is one of those people who likes to drive down the interstate (or other multi-lane road) at the same speed as the car next to him. If the people in the middle lane of the three-lane highway are going along at 65 MPH, The Pacer will be in the left-hand lane driving side-by-side with him at the same speed, never zooming ahead and moving in front of him, never dropping back and slipping in behind him. The Pacer is the guy who violates Wayne's First Rule of Driving:

Wayne's Driving Rule #1
If you want to drive at the same speed as the people in the lane next to you, then get in the lane next to you.

Is that so hard to understand? I mean, what is the point of having a multi-lane road or highway if you're going to plant your sorry ass right next to the only other person in the lane next you, thus blocking everyone else from exercising their right to go around you and get the hell away from you? Okay, so you don't want to get caught by the cops speeding up just to move ahead of the guy. It doesn't mean you can't just put on your right turn signal (I'll be talking a lot about those folks another day), ease off of the accelerator, and slide into the lane behind the guy you're matching pace with? It's not rocket science! Okay, so, technically, it is rocket science, but it's not like you have to solve for any of the variables! Not precisely, anyway. You just have to know when one is less than the other. In fact, that's the beauty of it. You actually do calculus and rocket science in your head, but you don't do it with numbers. And if nobody hits anybody else, then you did it right.

Just remember to do it in the right order. Signal first, then ease off the gas pedal, then slide over. Signaling first is most important, otherwise if you slow down first, the guy behind you (probably me) might end up ramming into you, or he might have to hit the brakes hard causing a chain reaction of people suddenly braking behind you. Eventually, if the line of cars behind you is long enough (and on the interstate, that could easily be a mile or two), the people near the very end of that bunch of cars begin coming to a stop because the cars in front of them are going so slowly. And that's how you find yourself coming to a complete stop on the highway, for no obvious reason in the world. You expect to see debris or, if you're the ghoulish type, some blood that hasn't been hosed away yet, but there's nothing and you wonder for the life of you why you all had to come to a complete stop. The answer is simple. It's that dickhead Pacer at the head of the line.

Once you've put on the signal, then you ease off the gas pedal. For the benefit of any Pacers out there trying to learn from this, I cannot emphasize the importance of following Step One with Step Two, and not skipping ahead to Step Three. I know it's tempting in this hustle-and-bustle world to want to multi-task and combine two things in one, but this is not the time to be trying that. Remember, there's been a car beside you this entire time, and if you attempt to complete Step Three before you have completed Step Two, you may find yourself suddenly spinning out of control. Oh, sure. It'll be cool for the rest of us to watch as your car flips end-over-end, finally coming to rest on the median before bursting into a ball of fire, and you run from the vehicle, flames dancing from your waving arms and legs, as you dive to the ground in a possibly vain attempt to put out the fire, but how would I know because you're finally no longer in front of me and I can get the hell away from you! Thank you for finally "moving over."

So, having successfully completed Steps One and Two (in that order), you are now ready to move on to Step Three, the Slide Over behind The Guy Next To You. You want to be careful here. He might be a Pacer, too, and his natural instinct would be to slow down with you so that neither of you is ahead of the other. This, by the way and for the record, is why some of us would like to equip our cars with missiles. But that's a topic for another blog. (Or maybe "Car Talk" on the radio.) If, as you are about to execute Step Three, you perceive that you are beside a Pacer, your best bet is to suddenly step on the gas and get ahead of him as quickly as possible and then slide over in front of him this time. (Remember, the original plan was to slip in behind him, but he thwarted that artful maneuver by being a dickhead. Switch to Plan B.) At this point, it's better for all concerned (specifically me, in particular, in the car behind you), that you speed up to get into the next lane rather than slow down because if you slow down, you're more likely to cause an actual fender-bender about a mile and a half behind you.

That's all for this edition. If there's enough enthusiastic support for this column, there may be future editions. (At this point, one favorable comment might be enough.) And be safe out there, there's a lot of pretty stupid fucking people on the roads.

Picking My Brain 08-02-01

2008-02-01T15:00:00.000-05:00

So I'm watching the political coverage of the Democrats on MSNBC last night and Craig "Aaaaaa-ggggh" Crawford says that a dream ticket for the Democrats would be "an Obama-Clinton, or Clinton-Obama ticket, depending on who's on top...and who's the running mate." I'm so glad he remembered to add "...and who's the running mate," because it looked for a moment like he might not. And if he left that part off, well, we are talking about a man and a woman here...

If extra-terrestrial beings were in orbit studying our planet and deciding on which country they should make first contact with, do you think that if they took a look at the Bush Administration, the United States would be their first choice? Me, neither.

An old favorite joke by stand-up comedian John Mendoza: I think every car should come with a cell phone, and the phone number would be your license plate. That way, I could call you up and say, "Would you mind getting the fuck out of my way?"

Media Matters has decided to launch a The Matthews Monitor to keep an eye on the often-rambling MSNBC host of "Hardball". Seems he has a "long history of degrading, sexist commentary". He also has this weird tendency to lapse into some kind of man-crush speak on some of the Republican candidates, like Romney and McCain. Anyway, I think it's time someone was paying attention to the things that man says. I'm not bringing this up because I want you to donate money or anything. That's entirely up to you. (I say that because they do have a place for donations there, but you can ignore it.) But Chris Matthews is a very influential Washington Political Commentator, and he represents the so-called "elites" of the political talk scene. If he wants the answer to a certain question, he can be relentless about going after people who might have the answers he wants. But only if it continues to interest him. So he has to be reminded when he strays from the important topics, and when he makes his patented sexist remarks.

That's all that seems to be floating around my noggin to night. If there are storms where you are, please be careful. We had an ice storm pass through here that, luckily, wasn't too severe. Could have been worse. So, as Sgt Esterhaus reminded everyone on Hill Street Blues, "Let's be careful out there."

From Tapper to Drudge to Fox News Channel

2008-02-01T07:28:00.000-05:00

You've got to hand it to the Republican Noise Machine for doing it once again. They've taken one segment of a comment Bill Clinton (D-USA) made on the campaign trail and totally misrepresented what was said in order to score more digs at him and, by extension, his wife, Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY). Perhaps you've seen some of them talk about it. Ironically, if they had read the entire post by ABC's Jake Tapper, they would have seen the line taken out of context. I'm surprised Tapper didn't read it, even though he allegedly wrote it.

It started with a blog post by Jake Tapper, in which he claims that Bill Clinton said that we need to slow down the economy to fight global warming. (BTW, Tapper added some updates in which he says he changed the title of his blogpost to better reflect what he meant, but I don't think it helped.) From there, internet gossip and self-styled humanoid Matt Drudge put a link to it on his compost heap, I mean blog. Well, that's all Fox News Channel needed, because later that day, E.D. Hill was leading a discussion on whether or not Bill Clinton was right to say that we need to slow down our economy in order to fight global warming. For the sake of fairness, let's quote what Bill Clinton actually said, and you tell me if he's saying that we need to slow down our economy to fight global warming:

CLINTON: And maybe America, and Europe, and Japan, and Canada -- the rich counties [sic] -- would say, "OK, we just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions 'cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren." We could do that. But if we did that, you know as well as I do, China and India and Indonesia and Vietnam and Mexico and Brazil and the Ukraine, and all the other countries will never agree to stay poor to save the planet for our grandchildren. The only way we can do this is if we get back in the world's fight against global warming and prove it is good economics that we will create more jobs to build a sustainable economy that saves the planet for our children and grandchildren. It is the only way it will work.

And guess what? The only places in the world today in rich countries where you have rising wages and declining inequality are places that have generated more jobs than rich countries because they made a commitment we didn't. They got serious about a clean, efficient, green, independent energy future... If you want that in America, if you want the millions of jobs that will come from it, if you would like to see a new energy trust fund to finance solar energy and wind energy and biomass and responsible bio-fuels and electric hybrid plug-in vehicles that will soon get 100 miles a gallon, if you want every facility in this country to be made maximally energy efficient that will create millions and millions and millions of jobs, vote for her. She'll give it to you. She's got the right energy plan.

For some reason, Jake Tapper completely missed the point that Clinton was making, which was that this approach is unnecessary and might not even work! He was saying the opposite! He was saying that the rich countries that did make a committment to fighting global warming have created jobs and improved their economies overall. Yet, Tapper puts in his headline that Bill Clinton was advocating a position he wasn't, and Matt Drudge (whose reading comprehension skills I seriously question) sticks the out-of-context quote in a link to tapper's blog.

Enter Fox News Channel. Not content to merely continue mischaracterizing what the man they hate most in the world said, Fox Airhead E.D. Hill decides to have a guest on to discuss it. This is where it starts to get really perverted. After showing a clip of Clinton saying just these words "...we just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions 'cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren..." (she acknowledged only that this was a "small part" of what he said), Hill invited a gentleman, Charles Payne, CEO of Wall Street Strategies, to discuss the "puzzling" statement by Bill Clinton. From the video clip at Media Matters, it appears that Payne took no time to familarize himself with the actual comments that Clinton made. Instead, the two of them ridiculed Clinton for suggesting that we slow down our economy which, once again, is not what Clinton said we should do. But it gets worse.

This dovetails into a discussion between Hill and Payne about how "the free market" will find a solution to this "so-called problem". (Yes, Payne referred to global warming as a "so-called problem".) In fact, Payne even suggested that our grandchildren "will find ways to make money off this". Friends, global climate change is a very real phenomenon, and every reputable scientist who isn't being paid to say otherwise agrees. At present, we are experiencing an overall increase in average temperatures, and one result of this is that the storms we do get tend to be more intense. And human activities are very definitely contributing to this in a very negative way. (Negative in the sense that we aren't making it better, we're making it worse.) Yes, to fight the effects will cost money, and it is entirely possible that the people who work in the industries that contribute to the problem may some day have to find other work. But there will be other work. There will be plenty of work in the alternative fuel industries. The problem is that right now, oil and coal, two of the biggest causes of pollution, are very profitable, and the kind of people who support George W. Bush (Fox News Channel, etc) believe that financial worth is equivalent to social worth. In other words, if it makes money, it must inherently be a good thing.

This is one of many battles that Liberals and the other Forces of Goodness and Light have to face each day. There are people out there who feel that making a profit is not only the most important thing in the world, but that it is a sign that you are doing something good. (This is why the Military Industrial Complex is so beloved by Wall Street, even though they make equipment designed to kill and maim people. They make a profit doing it, so they must be "good".) It makes no difference to these people how many lives are lost or destroyed, how many jobs are eliminated, or how many children go hungry and homeless each day. If someone has found a way to make money off the problem, that person is the one who is "good. It doesn't seem to matter if what they are doing is helping or hurting the problem, as long as they are making a profit. In fact, if someone were to come along and eliminate a problem that was proving highly profitable by someone else, they would probably be attacked for destroying jobs and ruining the economy, even if they saved hundreds of thousands of lives in the process.

We need to get off this inane ideas that "the free market" will provide the solutions to our problems. The Free Market only supports profitable solutions, not ones that might be costly but necessary, or even (dare I say it?) effective. We need to get off the idea that financial success is equal to social worth. There are quite a few very wealthy people who you wouldn't want your kids to learn from or even go near. Money isn't everything, and there comes a point where, quite frankly, you may have more than you'll ever need. Is there any sensible reason in the world why you would want more? Do we have to continue to support a national policy of greed? I'm not saying that Capitalism should be eliminated completely. I'm just saying that it is not the only way to live.

I do think that we can eliminate Fox News Channel with no longterm harmful effects to our society.

Keep Watching The Skies!

2008-01-26T20:40:00.001-05:00

Now look what they've done. They've gone and lost control of one of their satellites, and now it's going to fall sometime soon (late February, early March, they can't seem to say when yet) over somewhere unknown (might be the big blue ocean, might be your living room). Personally I find it hard to believe that our government has no one capable of solving problems in orbital mechanics like this. I mean, they knew exactly where the satellite was when it lost power and they lost control. They knew its velocity (which includes both its speed and its trajectory) when that happened. They know its co-efficient of friciton. They know its mass. (They built the damn thing.) Other than upper air weather patterns, the only other force acting upon it is gravity. Seems to me like they have enough information to figure out when it's going to hit the atmosphere and start burning up and falling to Earth. Why can't they tell us this? Ah, yes, because the fact that this is happening is still considered classified. Because it's one of their spy satellites.

Shouldn't the safety of the public be considered at least as important? If it's a rural area where the satellite might land, they should at least speak to local government officials. Tell them that what they are about to hear must remain classified for the time being. Besides, there is no need to alarm the public over what may be nothing. Be prepared to evacuate your town should it become necessary sometime around the end of next month and the beginning of the month after. We cannot say why right now. And if it's projected to land in a major city, what are they planning to do? Let thousands of innocent civilians die? Again?

What also bothers me about this story is the fact that they leaked enough classified information to make you nervous, but not nearly enough to make you feel like the potential danger to yourself is minimal. I mean, they could at least remind people of statistics like "You're 1,000 times more likely to be hit by lightening than by a piece of falling classified satellite debris." (Or whatever the actual odds are.) Instead, they leak this much info and no more. Why? If they have no intention of telling us whether or not we really are in danger, then of what benefit is it to us to leak this info at all? I mean, there's clearly nothing any of us could have done to stop it, of course, nor a Wile E. Coyote-style umbrella strong enough to hide under should it come right at us. Nothing we could do at all, really, except just try to stay out of its way if and when it comes down toward us. But they can't tell us when that will be, possibly because they expect that the laws of Gravity might be changed through a Bush Executive Order, or something.

Oh, yeah. I forgot. Gravity is just a "Theory".

Why Polls Are Always Wrong

2008-01-11T22:00:00.000-05:00

On the Jan 9, 2008 edition of "A Daily Show with Jon Stewart", guest John Zogby, of the famed Zogby polling, was asked if pre-election polling actually affected the outcome of the election and he answered,"I don't know." Is it unreasonable to think that people will or will not support a particular candidate because polls show the person they were thinking of throwing support to was going to win anyway? In 2000, I voted for Ralph Nader because even without the benefit of polls, I knew that my home state, New York, was going to go to Al Gore. So I decided to try to help a third party get on the ballots by getting at least five percent of the national vote. We came up short, and Al Gore, "as predicted", won New York anyway. I am hoping that more people understand the benefit of voting this way. If your candidate wins with 70% of the vote, all of those people who were above 51% could have done the same thing I did and their candidate would still have won. If more parties can get to field candidates without having to get signatures every year (the benefit of getting at least five percent of the national vote), then our choices won't continue to be limited to the goddamn Democratic Party and the goddamn Republican Party. (Yes, I'm a liberal libertarian, but I despise both of those national parties. Local politics are different.)

As everyone who follows the polls knows by now, none of the major pollsters got it right in New Hampshire, certainly as far as Democrats are concerned. And there's a good reason for that. Political polling as a means of predicting the eventual winner of an election does not work! The theory is flawed. Stewart asked Zogby how many phone calls he would have to make to get the 850 to 900 people he uses for the poll, and Zogby answered, "About six to seven thousand." Suppose it was 6,300 calls to get 900 responses. That means that six out of seven people were not asked about their opinion on that particular question or issue. So how do they make the leap that the one out of seven that they do question is representative of the rest of us? How do they know, for example, how people who screen their calls with an answering machine will vote, or how people who don't like being interrupted to take a poll will vote, or how people who don't believe that polls are accurate will vote? They don't because they can't. How could they prove that they are "just like the people" who do give their time to a pollster (on the assumed pretense that they will give truthful and non-evasive answers)? How much do they weigh the respondent's qualifications to answer a question when taking results? Do they ask every person how politically aware they are? Or do they just ask for whom they'd like to vote (and if they plan to vote)?

Another reason for flawed results is that there are, apparently, a lot of people who don't make up their minds until the day they vote. Zogby said that about 18% of the voters made up their minds on Election Day. That's a lot of people (about 2 out of 11). Is it any wonder that they couldn't accurately predict the outcome? And since this was being heralded as a "Three Horse Race" by the supposedly unbiased media (both left and right), it was unclear to the pundits who would get the "anti-vote" of any of the candidates. Would anti-Clintons throw their support for Obama or Edwards? That would depend, of course, on why they didn't like Clinton. Would anti-Obama voters support Clinton or Edwards? It is hard to imagine that anyone could be so against Sen Obama as people are quite clearly so against Sen Clinton. Personally, I feel that a lot of the hate directed at her is unwarranted and unfounded. Many of the talking heads I hear flinging poo in her direction are using debunked and irrelevant talking points in an often inarticulate effort to do no more than continue to foment hatred toward her. While there may certainly be good reason to dislike Sen Clinton, it's probably not for any of the reasons you've heard. Unfortunately, because little is explored in depth on these types of shows very often (Keith Olbermann, one of my favorites, being an obvious exception), people too lazy to cross verify what they hear on TV continue to believe the lies. And because they believe the lies, they believe the innuendo about her and what she might do once inaugurated as our 44th President of the United States.

Oh, wait, sorry. You mean she hasn't actually won? You could have fooled me. It sure sounds like it on TV. The entire Primary Process is completely different from any other election year because of all the changes to the voting dates. Much of their theory about who will do well after each primary is based on the past performance of previous winners of those primaries. But those primaries often had days or weeks more time between them, when a lot of things can happen to a candidate, than they do this year. So how can they be certain that the "winner" in New Hampshire is going to perform a certain way in upcoming primaries that now come sooner than before? Seriously, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to presume that any historical pattern will repeat in this election cycle. With the way these primaries are coming, the nominees of each party will be decided in plenty of time for them to screw up badly and an independent candidate gets on the ballots in all fifty states. It's not too late for that to happen. Don't say I didn't warn you.

And the analysis you hear all the time from the political talking heads is really just a bunch of nonsense. Look at what happened when Sen Clinton beat Sen Obama in the New Hampshire primary. Suddenly it was a "stunning upset" because all the polls showed that Sen Obama would win, some by double-digit figures. Could it be that their interpretation of the polling results was in error because their theory is flawed? I mean, do they ever "predict" the accurate results ahead of time? No. I know what you're going to say. "Wayne, you ignorant slut. That's what the Margin of Error is for." Oh, really? Then how come election results often fall outside the so-called "margin of error"? (It happens.) And do know why that is? The answer is mind-bendingly simple. The difference between what the polls predicted and how the election actually case out is not what the "Margin of Error" you hear so much is measuring. It has nothing whatsoever to do with that. It is not the percent the results may vary, it's the probability that your sample group (those 900 voters who answered the poll)is not representative of the actual group as a whole (them plus the 5400 people who did not take part in the poll). And even that is based on something that doesn't apply to actual political pollees: It is presumed that the group being sampled falls into a kind of general, bell-shaped graph of results (whatever they may be) where most things are more-or-less alike and there's a small number of things on either extreme. You've all seen them. It's fine for analyzing things that actually did or did not happen. They are facts. And they do generally fit the bell curve graph (for the most part). But the opinions of ill-informed people is no sound way to predict how they'll vote. People often base their opinion on things that are not true. And there's no telling when they will learn the truth and change their mind about the people they always supported before.

People, it's time to put an end to the belief that political polls can tell you anything about the outcome of an election. They can't. Not with any degree of certainty that is worth investing in, because they are flawed from the get-go. The best thing you can do is trust your own feelings about a candidate and what he or she stands for, and vote for the candidate who YOU think best represents your views. That is what Democracy is all about.

P.S. This Means You (A Song Parody)

2007-12-18T01:12:00.001-05:00

P.S. This Means You
(Original Words and Music, "P.S. I Love You",
by Paul McCartney & John Lennon, 1963
Additional Lyrics by Wayne A. Schneider, 2007)

"As I write this letter,
Send my words to you.
Remember that you have to
See impeachment through.

"Honor those oath's words you took together.
Remember them forever.
P.S. This means you.
You, You, You"

I'll be writing Hall again tomorrow
To tell him of my sorrow.
P.S. Why don't you?
You, You, You.

"As I write this letter,
Send my words to you.
Remember that you have to
See impeachment through.

"Honor those oath's words you took together.
Remember them forever.
P.S. This means you.
You, You, You.

"As I write this letter, Oh,
Send my words to you. You know I want you to
Remember that you have to, yea,
See impeachment through."

I'll be writing Hall again tomorrow
To tell him of my sorrow.
P.S. Why don't you?
You, You, You.
You, You, You.
Why don't you?

To Replace Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House of Representatives for the Purposes of Pursuing Impeachment Petition

2007-12-15T22:18:00.000-05:00

Scott Creighton has initiated "To Replace Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House of Representatives for the Purposes of Pursuing Impeachment Petition". While this is a major step, it is not one to be considered lightly. Yet, after learning that she plans to use Republican corruption as a 2008 House campaign issue instead of pursuing the impeachment (and later removal from office) of Vice President Dick Cheney, I have no choice but to believe that she fully intends to put the interests of her political party ahead of the interests of the nation and of her obligation to support and defend the Constitution of the Unites States. I cannot think of any other way to get her attention than to threaten her with removal from her historic position as the first ever female Speaker of the House. But the fact that she is a woman and a Democrat makes no difference. The evidence has been forthcoming the most under her watch, and the previous Speaker who ignored the president's and vice president's crimes might be cut some slack, but not Speaker Pelosi. We now have proof that the vice president acted illegally. If she won't let impeachment proceedings go forward because she wants to use it as a campaign issue, then let's get someone in there who will go through with impeachment. Leadership isn't just holding a position or a gavel. Leadership is leading. So, Ms Pelosi, lead or get out of the way.

It is incumbent upon every American citizen to hold their Representatives to their oaths of office. If members of the US Military are expected to fight and die as part of their oath to protect and defend the constitution of the United States, how can our Representatives balk at impeachment?

Please read the petition and add your signature.

Dear Congressman Hall

2007-12-13T19:59:00.000-05:00

Dear Congressman Hall:

I'm writing to express my extreme disappointment in you and the rest of the Congress for the useless and unconstitutional vote on "H. Res. 847: Recognizing the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith." This is an extremely dangerous step over the line that our founding fathers drew between church and state, and towards the establishment of a national religion. I'm saddened that someone of your intelligence could pander to the imaginary "War on Christmas" rhetoric of the type that Bill O'Reilly spews (he is now taking credit for "winning" the "War on Christmas", thanks to this resolution.) I'm also saddened, and frightened, by this resolution's obvious effect of insulting the many other religions practiced by American citizens. Our government, according to the Constitution, has no business recognizing the "importance" of any religion. I urge you to reconsider this vote and call for the resolution's repeal. If not, then I sincerely hope that the Senate quickly disposes of this as being patently unconsitutional, which should have been obvious to you and to every other Representative who voted for it. Thank you for your consideration.

I would still like to wish you and your family a Merry Christmas, and I hope that we get to see you Friday night at the party in Pawling. If you're still in Washington right now, get ready for some snow, we got hit with about 8" of it today.

Sincerely,
Jane E. Schneider
Pawling, NY

Destroying Democracy

2007-12-08T14:29:00.000-05:00

Democracy in America is slowly being destroyed. The attack has been insidious, and our desire for a government of the people, by the people, for the people is being eroded every day. And the worst part is that all of us have invited the attackers into our homes freely and willingly. Some of us even venture outside our homes to personally make sure some of the attackers have safe passage to our living rooms. We don't think of them as attackers of Democracy, but rather our friends and allies in the struggle against those who would take our Democracy away by force. They are supposed to be the ones protecting our Democracy without guns and bullets. They are supposed to be our trusted advisor, giving us the information we need to ensure our Democracy remains strong. They are the ones who are supposed to be our source of truth, the ones we can call upon to validate the facts we use to make informed decision about whom we would choose to govern us according to the way we want to be governed. They are The Media (the newspapers, television and cable networks, and radio stations, both land and satellite, and all the sources of information that purport to be following the standards of Journalism.)

The Media is destroying Democracy. They destroy it by what they say, and they destroy it by what they don't say. When they talk about the various elections, they mislead us constantly, always steering us away from thinking differently than they tell us the rest of the country is thinking. They do this because it's easier than actually doing the work of reporting, of asking questions and verifying the facts behind the things being told them. And they do it when they fail to tell us about all of the candidates running for high office. They will claim that time constraints on live TV require that they limit how many candidates they can cover, but who says that we want them to tell us about just the "front-runners" in the first place? It turns out that they do.

When The Media speak of "the inevitability of Hillary", they begin to speak of how voters are picking the candidate who they think "has the best chance of winning the presidency." This is wrong. This is not what Democracy is supposed to be about. Democracy functions best when the people casting the votes are informed. When they understand all of the issues upon which they are voting, they are then able to decide what would be the best way to vote (which ballot measures to approve, which candidates to select.) But the way the Media presents the issues is not full, in-depth coverage, but scaled-down, limited scrutiny on issues they tell us we want to know more about. Who knows how much of the country really wants Hillary Clinton to be president? Who knows how much of the country really wants Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul to be president? I live in New York State, and I do not believe that I know a single person who wants Hillary Clinton to be president. If she's the nominee and the Republicans have put up one of the major front-runners we hear so much about (as opposed to one of the other candidates of whom we hear next to nothing), they would likely support her, but only because the Republican alternative would be unbearable (for different reasons). And yet the Media has been telling us practically since 2000 that Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic nominee for president in 2008. How do they know this? They don't. They're creating it out of thin air and their own deceptions to the public.

And what makes them say that we voters select a candidate based on how we perceive their chances of winning that particular race? Where does the candidate's "chances of winning" enter into this? They should be encouraging voters to pick the candidate who best represents their views on how the country should be run. Instead of encouraging people to dream, to have hopes and aspirations for what this great country is capable of doing (and, for the record, despite what anybody thinks of Liberals, I believe that this is still a great country), to teach children to want to value public service enough to want to be a part of it, in any kind of positive way, they instead send the message that the object is simply to win. Nothing more. Without winning, nothing else matters. This is wrong.

Our representation in Washington has degraded to the point where Right and Wrong mean nothing, only winning counts. And we got that way because we elected people with that mentality. And we elected people with that mentality because the media has told us who is viable and who is not. And the media has told us who is viable and who is not based on what they think the public wants from the government. And what they think the public wants from the government is based on polls. And polls are based on a statistical analysis of how about a thousand people picked at random answer a pollster's questions. And this is the flaw in their logic. This is the tool with which they are destroying Democracy.

I have always been suspicious of polls, and after doing some research (I never studied the subject in school), I have come to believe that when it comes to public opinion polls, especially about politicians and candidate selection, polls are being misused and misreported. One of the key culprits is the "margin of error". (It's the misinterpretation and misunderstanding of this concept that is at the heart of how the Media is destroying Democracy.) I have learned a little about statistical analysis from a website set up by Robert Niles, who writes to help journalists understand how to use statistics.

It starts with the sample size. According to statistical theory, the researcher needs to be concerned that the sample chosen is not representative of the event(s) being studied. One thing the Media doesn't tell you is that there is a huge difference between analyzing statistics on car accidents or heart attacks, and analyzing public responses to pollster questions. The former involves actual facts and true events of things that, more or less, are the same across the whole spectrum of events provided you have properly defined what it is you are measuring, and how you are collecting the data. The data collected must be sufficient to ensure that a sample chosen at random will have a certain degree of probability of being representative of the whole, assuming that such a concept exists! When you speak of public opinion polls, you are often discussing responses to questions about which the respondent is not qualified to give an intelligent answer. "Should the U.S. impose sanctions on country x?" Come on! Does the average American have a sufficient grasp of all of the variables involved in determining whether or not to issue economic sanctions against another sovereign nation? Of course not! One could argue that neither do the people in government making those decisions, but they aren't the ones answering the poll trying to gauge public opinion. So how could the results have any meaning in the first place? Yet the Media will report results of this poll as if it represents the feelings of the nation as a whole. It clearly can't possibly do that, so what gives the Media the right to say it does?

So they tell you that the poll result has a margin of error, and they tell you that this margin of error means that the result of any response (whether it's a yes/no or agree/somewhat agree/somewhat disagree/disagree-type poll) could be that many points up or down. This is flat out wrong. In statistics, it is assumed that what you are measuring (is measurable, first of all, which may be debatable) will fit into a graph in the shape of a bell curve (high in the middle and then flattening out to he sides). I do not believe that public opinion on any subject (ballot measure or candidate) will graph out to such a curve, if it can be graphed at all. I do not believe it true that the majority of the country feels the same way about things, and that only a small percentage fall out to either margin. Statistical analysis of poll results assumes this, so the results are flawed for that reason, too. The Margin of Error of any statistical result is the probability that the sample you've chosen is not representative of the whole subject under study. If you have only ten things to sample, a formula used in statistics will tell you that there is about a 30% chance that this sample does not represent the event you want to study. If you increase the sample size to 100, the margin of error goes down, because you are now more likely to be picking samples more broadly representative of all events (of that type). Another omission by the Media is the fact that for a statistical analysis of factual events that did or did not happen, it makes no difference how big the pool is from which the samples are drawn. (On the theory that they are more or less the same for the parameter you've defined.) The higher your sample size, the less likely it is that your samples are a bunch of exceptions to the rule. But this assumes that there is a rule to which they might be an exception! It has nothing to do with the validity of the answers given, only the probability (not 100%) that your sample isn't an aberration. Have you ever heard an estimate of how many poll questions are answered falsely? I haven't. If you feel like searching for one, be my guest. I'd love to see the answer.

Now, consider that the fact that a great deal of Americans are ill-informed on the major issues. When Presidents Bush and Cheney launched a series of lies which lead to our illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq, a majority of Fox News Channel viewers believed one of three things they were told that were not true. (Iraq had WMD, Saddam worked with bin Laden and al Qaeda, Iraq was involved in 9/11.) A significant percentage believed all three! Yet no poll that I've seen mentions that a significant percentage of their polling sample are morons who wouldn't know a fact if it bit them on the ass. What's more, I know for a fact that the poll results do not include the views of people like me, because people like me don't answer the phone when pollsters call! So how can they say that their poll results reflect my views? Don't think that I'm complaining because my views are not represented in all the polls you hear spouted on TV, because I don't believe those polls have any worth. The pollsters keep their algorithms a closely guarded secret, so how does anyone know if the numbers they publicly release are the ones their formula came up with or just made up? Hardly any of them accurately predict the election results, yet they claim that you should believe them. And the media (which often sponsor these polls, or participate in the collection of data) wants you to believe that what they say about what the country thinks is reliable, and in no way done just to direct you to think a certain way about subjects.

If a candidate for office doesn't have the money to pay for the media to follow him around, then the media does not report very much on what that candidate says or does, unless he does it in a place where the media normally goes. When do you see people like Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul on TV? When they speak out on a controversial subject from the floor of the House. (Poor Mike Gravel, no longer in public office, has no such forum from which to be heard.) Do you see every stop they make in Iowa or New Hampshire? No, because the media only reports on who they tell you the front-runners are. How do you know that these people are the favorites among voters? Because the media tells you they are. How do they know which candidate people like me like? They can't, because I've never told them. If they tell you that they surveyed 1,200 people chosen at random, how do they know how a nation of 300,000,000 will vote, almost a year from now in an election that hasn't taken place yet, when they don't know what a big slice of the public thinks? Because they don't want you thinking. They want you to feel as though to believe something they say is unpopular makes you too different to have the right to have your say. They want to make themselves look good by telling you what you think. You want to support one of these "third tier candidates"? (Who gave them that name, by the way?) Well, then you might be a little crazy because the polls tell us everyone loves Hillary, and a lot of people love Obama (including Oprah!), so maybe you the voter aren’t so smart after all. And since your candidate can't win (they tell you), you're better off throwing your support behind someone who can. Why back a loser, especially one we decided is a loser?

So, instead of encouraging you to cast your vote for the person you would like to see win, they tell you to limit your choices to an annointed few. They say that in politics, perception is reality. The Media are the ones who have created the perception that certain candidates just aren't worth your support, because the Media has decided that they cannot win. And if they limit the number of candidates they have to cover, they don't have to spend the time and money covering the candidates with the best ideas. Instead, they talk about whether or not their favorite front-runners can convince people to want something else, something the favored candidate wants instead. If you want to believe polls? Then explain this: According to the polls, a majority of the country is opposed to the war in Iraq. A majority also dislikes the job that George W. Bush is doing. According to Rudy Giuliani's campaign statements, he has said that if you like Bush, then you'll like him. And he has been saying this for a while. So how can Giuliani be doing so well in the polls (overall) if he stands for everything the country is against? Yet The Media would have you believe that he may very well be the likely Republican nominee, based on the polls they report or conduct. Want further evidence? Listen closely when polls start deviating from the pre-determined results. Suddenly, voters are "surprising the pundits" by not favoring the candidate the Media thinks they should be favoring. It never seems to occur to them that the data they've been using is flawed from the outset, that the methodology they've been employing can't possibly be accurate.

Don't believe the polls. Support the candidate that YOU like, not the ones the Media like. After all, they aren't casting your vote, you are. Vote for the candidate that you feel best represents your view. If you're reading this, then you probably have access to the internets. Use it, the candidates do. Learn about the candidates yourself and make your own decision. And whatever you do, don't help the Media mislead the country by answering polling questions. You're only helping them to perpetuate a lie.

No Religious Test Shall Ever Be Required

2007-12-03T22:14:00.000-05:00

Cancel the speech, Gov Romney. You don't need to do it. You have the constitutional right to tell anyone who questions your religion to go to Hell, if you want. Assuming you believe in Hell. I don't, but that's neither here not there. You see, Gov Romney, there's an often-overlooked clause in the constitution. Article VI, Clause 3, ends with, "...but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." The Republican Party especially has been putting out the idea that if you are not a person of faith, then you are unfit to hold high public office. This is wrong, and it is unconstitutional.

Since, constitutionally, there is no religious test that any candidate for president must pass, then why do all the candidates act as if they are trying to pass one? Why do they make a big deal out of their religious beliefs? Those beliefs shouldn't matter, because they have no role in guiding public policy. Personal moral behavior, yes, if that's what you think is needed to be moral, but public policy, no. And therein lies the problem. There are too many people out there who believe that you must have a belief in God (or in some power higher than yourself which, to the skeptic like me, would look just like a god) in order to have a moral belief system. This is simply not true. I adhere to no religious beliefs (in case you didn't already know, I am atheist), yet I have as my moral guiding principal the same one many of you out there have: To try to treat other people the way I would like to be treated by them.

I do not need any fear of eternal damnation in Hell to frighten me into doing what's right. I try to do what's right because I feel good when I do it. I like helping people. I like teaching people new things. I like trying to make the lives of the people I see everyday just a little bit better for having given me the opportunity to share this life with them. I do it because I like to do it. And the fact that there are a lot of people who have the same moral foundation as I is evident in the way they return the kindness I give them. They, in return, are treating me as I treat them. And no deity need be involved. No fear of what may come after this life for not doing right by your fellow man. None of that. Just the simple recognition that if we all try to treat other people the way we would like to be treated, that kindness just naturally comes back to us. (Most of the time, anyway.)

So cancel that speech, Gov Romney. Your religious beliefs are nobody else's business. And just as you have the right to refuse to subject yourself to any religious test whatsoever (including do you have one?), the voting public has no constitutional right to insist that you do. And we don't ever need to hear about those religious beliefs because they will not be driving public policy. Will they? I hope not.

The Morality Quiz (Not Mine, Apparently)

2007-11-25T00:32:00.001-05:00

In an upcoming issue of Time magazine there is a story called "What Makes Us Moral?" Accompanying the article is The Morality Quiz. It's five simple questions about five situations in which you would have to choose whether or not to take a human life. Go ahead and take the quiz. After each question, you can see how your answer compared to the other people who took it. I intend to discuss each of the five questions below, and I will discuss how I answered them and reasoned them out. One hint: I was in the majority only once as of the time I took the test. I'll be here when you're done.

Insert Jeopardy "Think" music here.

The questions in the quiz are used by social scientists to determine where humans draw the line on morality. My "Golden Rule", my moral philosophy of treating other people the way I would want them to treat me, governed how I answered those questions. I would not want to be the one sacrificed on someone else's say-so, at least not without the chance to offer myself up voluntarily.

I'm not an orphaned baby whose cries could fatally expose a group of adults (BTW, did this scenario remind anyone of the last episode of "M*A*S*H"?), but I might be a severely injured adult in a great deal of unsoothable pain whose similar cries might jeopardize the lives of others. I wouldn't want someone else to make the decision that I should die or be expelled from the group to save the rest. But, believe it or not, I would be willing to voluntarily sacrifice myself to save others. I was in the 41% who would not smother the baby in the quiz. I'm a little concerned that three out of five people would do it.

Similarly, I could not order a person certain to die to be thrown overboard from an overcrowded lifeboat, but if I were the one injured and I was lucid enough to understand the situation, I would sacrifice myself to save the rest. I was a little surprised to learn that I was in that one out of every three that would not toss overboard a grievously ill person, and again I was concerned to see that two out of three people could do it. Perhaps the respondents weren't putting themselves in the place of the baby and badly-injured they would so readily sacrifice. In the case of the lifeboat sacrifice, I'm a little further disturbed that the percentage was higher than in the first question, even though this one clearly spelled out that the person being killed was fully aware of what was happening. Did people answer this way because they thought that this was the kind of resolution a leader should come to? Is it that they feel that a leader must be able to decide who lives and who dies in order to lead? Does a leader have that moral right in the first place? I do not believe that the test fully addresses that aspect of the moral question being studied.

Finally, the last three questions are based on the same basic scenario: There is a trolley about to kill five people and a way is offered for you to turn that five fatalities into only one. But it's not an easy choice like a random one of those five will die, but you can't know which. That would be simple. Yes, do what it takes to save up to four of those lives, and let the Fates determine who the unlucky one is. But in this case, the random death is not a random one of the five, but a completely different person. Each one has a different way in which that would happen, and you have to decide whether or not you would take the option given. Here's where the responses reveal something interesting. In the first one, you can throw a switch that will divert a trolley from killing five people in a group to killing one person by himself. The deaths are assumed to be imminent based on which track the trolley takes (which is determined by whether or not you throw a switch.) I couldn't do it. I couldn't knowingly throw that switch and kill that unsuspecting man on the side. I was almost shattered to learn that I was one of only 18% who couldn't throw the switch. An astounding 82% said they would do it. Remember that in my mind, I'm not simply saving five lives, I'm taking one. Even though the two are simultaneous and derivative of the same exact action on my part, I couldn't bring myself to kill another human at random. (Now I suspect that by now you're thinking I'm the romantic hero, but I do feel this way. Ask Jane. I have told her that even if we were in a group of people trying to survive a situation, and it was necessary for one person to sacrifice himself to guarantee the safety of the others, then I would do it.) If it were me stuck on the tracks and I could reach the switch and divert the trolley from their track to my own, thus killing myself but saving them, I would do it. That was not an option in this quiz though.

The fourth question changes the parameters of the first trolley car. In this one I was finally in the majority, but I suspect that it was because a lot of people taking these life and death morality questions are, at heart, cowards who don't believe in why they would do things they claim they would do. In this question, instead of throwing a switch to divert the trolley upon another innocent bystander, you have to actually throw an innocent bystander onto the track to save the five people. I was part of the five out of nine who said they could not push the bystander onto the track. Of course, in my mind, if I could push someone else off the bridge and onto the track below to save five people, I could also throw myself over. So why would four out of nine people say they could personally, with their bare hands, kill an innocent person to save five others? I'm not so sure they had alternatives in mind. Nor do they put themselves in the shoes of the guy they decided to sacrifice to save five other people. Kind of scary, when you think about it.

Even scarier are the results of the fifth and final question. Like the previous question, you have to cause another person to get thrown onto the path of the trolley, but instead of pushing them with your hands, you throw a switch that catapults them. (Again, of course, I said no.) Surprisingly enough, one of those nine people switched their position and decided that not having to actually touch the person they are condemning made it okay to go ahead and kill them. Now only four out of nine would not throw the switch, while five out of nine people said they would catapult someone to their death to save five other people. I have to wonder if they ever thought of themselves as being the one chosen to be sacrificed.

As the introduction to the quiz (and the aritcle itself) said, "The deepest foundation on which morality is built is the phenomenon of empathy, the understanding that what hurts me would feel the same way to you." I don't think I find it comforting to know that a majority of my fellow humans would sacrifice me against my will to save the lives of others. Yes, I believe it a noble thing to do it voluntarily (perhaps it's why I say I would do it, but I really would), but I also find it inhuman and inhumane to decide to sacrifice someone else, especially a particular someone else, for the good of the group. Drawing straws to see who must done for the others at least brings the element of fairness to the situation. The losing straw could be anyone's. I think we can accept the random death of one person if it ends up saving the group. But the deliberate murder of a single person, whether or not it could be rationalized as anything other than what it is, is more disturbing. Has our morality grown very high from its "deepest foundation" if so many people can forget what it might be like to be the one picked against his will to die so that others may live? I fear we have a long, long way to go before our species is ready for the next step in the evolutionary journey. We might reach it way before then, but we won't be ready for it. And that could be the momst frightening thing of all.

Private Accounts, Public Disaster

2007-11-24T12:57:00.000-05:00

The Associated Press is reporting what some of the major party presidential candidates have to say about Social Security (see article at Raw Story.) In a nutshell, three of the Democratic candidates (Sen Hillary Clinton, Sen Barack Obama, Sen John Edwards) have all said that they favor "higher payroll taxes on upper-income earners" (I agree, as millionaires who wouldn't miss their future Social Security checks if they never got them won't miss the extra taxes taken from them); and five of the Republican candidates (Gov Mitt Romney, Gov Mike Huckabee, Sen Fred Thompson, Mayor Rudy Giuliani, and Sen John McCain) have all said they favor private accounts (which, make no mistake about it, is equivalent to saying they wish to abolish Social Security altogether.)

Money paid out in Social Security benefits today did not come from a Lockbox, but from the FICA taxes taken out of your paycheck today. It's basically a direct payment from your paycheck (and your employer's wallet, too) to the people getting the benefits. If you start telling people they don't have to pay into the system, less money becomes available to pay today's recipients. Since benfits are guaranteed, the difference must come from one of two sources - either higher taxes or more borrowing. Of the two, it is really better that we raise taxes on those who could most afford to live without the money. Should their benfits also increase since they'll be paying lots more into the system? Like I said, we're talking about the kind of people who wouldn't miss their Social Security checks if they never got them. Why bother raising their benefits? Does anyone really need to be that wealthy? Seriously.

What about the other candidate? Well, Congressman Tom "Bold Enough To Say It...(You're All Going To Die)" Tancredo favors private accounts. (There appears to be no truth to the rumor that Tancredo wants "to tax illegal immigrants back to their home countries".) There's Congressman Ron Paul, in addition to eliminating taxes on Social Security benefits (a fine idea), also favors private accounts. Finally on the Republican side, Congressman Duncan "Chicken Pilaf Dinner" Hunter" supports, you guessed it, private accounts. One of the abilities of the super smart people is a keen eye for pattern recognition. You won't need their help to see the pattern here. The Republicans seem Hell-bent on destroying Social Security.

What about the other Democrats? Funny you should ask. I've got that right here. Sen Joe Biden promises to "Protect Social Security, Not Privatize It". (He said so on his site.) Sen Chris Dodd suggests a Universal 401(k), and no privatization. Gov Bill Richardson didn't seem to have much to say about Social Security on his campaign site, and Congressman Dennis Kucinich didn't mention a plan for Social Security on his website, either, as near as I could tell. And finally, Sen Mike Gravel, who crawled out from under a rock to run for president, didn't make it easy for me to find his plan for Social Security on his website.

To follow news about all the candidates, I recommend Politics 1. I also recommend you not focus only on the Democratic and Republican candidates for president. They are not your only choices. That's just what they want you to believe.

UPDATE: Thanks to a fellow Critter, here's what Mr. Kucinich has to say about Social Security.

Mum's Window

2007-11-17T23:57:00.000-05:00

Almost exactly three years ago, as we were all stunned and in mourning over Bush's "re-election", my mother lay dying in a hospital bed in my old bedroom at home. We had decided not to tell Mum the outcome of the election, knowing that she would only be more worried about our futures and our country's future. Mum had been alarmed and frightened during Bush's first term, and was concerned enough (although extremely proud) about our involvement in anti-administration politics, that we didn't want to add to her worries. At this point, Mum's only contacts with the outside world were our family, good neighbors, a few visitors, and the windows of my small childhood bedroom.

One window faced west, and we had decorated it with various stained-glass pieces to catch the afternoon sunlight. One late afternoon in the week before Thanksgiving, after a cold, blustery rain, the sun finally broke through shortly before sunset. Suddenly Mum's window was gloriously lit, with the setting sun gilding every raindrop still stuck on the window's screen and glowing through the stained glass. I didn't think that I had time to get my camera, so Mum and I just watched, oohing and ahhing, until the sun finally set and the spectacular show was over. Afterward, we commiserated over my not having my camera handy, but we were both glad that we were able to share the beauty.

Luckily, Mother Nature apparently was pleased enough with her work to show it again the next evening, when I did have my camera handy. The resulting pictures (shown here both with and without flash) serve as a reminder to me that no matter how horrific circumstances are, brief moments of beauty can fill the heart, most especially when shared with a loved one.

Angry White Man (A Song Parody)

2007-11-16T19:54:00.000-05:00

We've all heard them at one time or another. The Angry White Man on the radio or TV bitching and moaning about this or that. They're never happy (unless some liberal is getting hurt somehow), and they always seem to have this hatred they feel the need to spew at some "other". Sometimes they name the object of their vitriol, and sometimes it's just a vague, nebulous group, which may or may not exist. For them, I dedicate this song parody. It doesn't have to be about any one in particular, you can pick your favorite and I'm sure it will apply. Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Michael "The Savage" Weiner (I hope you know his real last name is "Weiner"; it might explain things), Sean Hannity, whoever you want it to be. I hope you enjoy. This is to the tune of Billy Joel's "Angry Young Man". Thank you, Mr. Joel, for providing me with another great song to use. I hope you don't mind.

Angry White Man
(Original Words and Lyrics "Angry Young Man" by Billy Joel
Additional Lyrics by Wayne A. Schneider, 2007)

There's a place on the air for the angry white man,
With his working class act and his immigrant ban.
He refuses to think. He refuses to see.
He always believes he's the best that can be.
And he's proud of his views and the beatings he takes.
And he whines and he cries as he lays out the stakes.
And he'll likely be known as the Angry White Man.

Give a forum or two to the angry white man,
With a beef for the world and a hate for his land.
He was called on his lies but he misunderstood.
It's a comfort to know that his critics are good.
And he sits in a room with a microphone on.
And he wishes the non-Christian people were gone.
And he'll likely be known as the Angry White Man.

I believe he's reached the stage
Of thinking he's some kind of sage.
He thinks that racial purity's a noble fight.
I still believe in causes, too,
And think I'm just as good as you.
His show goes on no matter if he's wrong or right.

And there's somehow a place for the angry white man
With his head full of crap and his fear quite at hand.
And he's never been able to see his mistakes,
So he can't understand why they call him a fake.
But his honor's in doubt and his courage as well,
And he rants and he lies and he's stupid as hell.
And he'll go to his grave as an Angry White Man

There's a place on the air for the angry white man,
With his working class act and his immigrant ban.
He refuses to think. He refuses to see.
He always believes he's the best that can be.
And he's proud of his views and the beatings he takes.
And he whines and he cries as he lays out the stakes.
And he'll likely be known as the Angry White Man.

Give 'Em the Bird, Vote For a Third! Pt 6 - The Money Game

2007-11-11T15:36:00.001-05:00

Rep Don Young (R-AK) is a perfect example of why campaign finance reform is so necessary in this country. According to a report in McClatchy Newspapers, about 85% [Correction: I mistakenly typed 895%. This was not intentional, and I was not being sarcastic. I meant 85%. My apologies.] of the money he raised to get re-elected came from people who did not live in Alaska. (Alaska only has one US Representative At Large). Why should any candidate for US Representative or US Senator be allowed to accept money from people who would not be constituents? There is no excuse for this, and it is unacceptable.

Let me give you a broad hypothetical. Suppose I was a multi-billionaire (many times over), and I wanted to heavily influence every Congressional race in the country. I want to see people in Congress who share my view about the licensing rights of the product I make and sell. Current law is eating into the potential for me to make billions more, and I want that to change. So I contribute the maximum amount allowable under federal law to a candidate in each and every race in the country. I will also part with several hundred million more dollars in soft money to the political parties. When the time comes to have legislation passed that would benefit me and, for the most part, me alone, to the tune of billions of dollars, how can legislators, some of whom might be voting against the best interests of their own constituents over mine, justify casting that vote? I'll tell you how. They don't, because they don't have to. They do it, I make billions, and most people never learn the truth. Why should I be able to wield that kind of influence over lawmakers who do not represent me in Congress?

How many people in Alaska knew that their sole Representative on Congress was taking $17 out of every $20 he raised from people he should care less about than the people from his state? If Alaskans liked him so much, then why did he need to raise money from people he's not supposed to be representing in Congress? As I have not looked into it, I do not know what percentage of his or her campaign funds his opponents collected from non-Alaskans, but I understand they were considered weak. If so, then why did he need so much money from outsiders? More importantly, why is this even allowed?

I know it sounds naive, but so many of our elected officials, who are supposed to be representing us, their constituents, accept money from people they won't be representing in Congress, and we all know that those political contributions are expected to be rewarded. None of them will ever admit this because it would be a crime to give back such favors in exchange for political contributions. Yet they do it, and they get away with it. And the reason they get away with it is because it's allowed. And it shouldn't be.

You want to clean up politics? You must start by banning any political contributions from non-individuals (that's means both corporations and Political Action Committees, or NAMBLA) and from people who will not be represented by that candidate in Congress. Otherwise, people you don't even know and will likely never meet will have more influence over your Representatives in both Houses of Congress than you ever will. And if they don't represent you, then you are being denied your constitutional right to a republican form of government. And that should bother you a lot.

You Broke My Heart Again, John Hall

2007-11-10T21:44:00.001-05:00

My Congressman, John Hall (NY-19), has done it again. He has failed to support the impeachment of Vice President Dick Cheney when brought to a vote by Rep Dennis Kucinich. I cannot understand why, nor do I accept his previous explanations. I met Mr. Hall a couple of times while he was running for the Democratic nomination. I even contributed to his campaign (it's a matter of public record). When I met him, I even mentioned that he and I were involved in the same event though with completely different roles. I was a Peacekeeper at the No Nukes Rally in Battery Park, and he was one of the many talented musicians who organized it and performed there. (And a fantastic job they did, too. It was one of the proudest days of my life to have played a small part in it.) I remember specifically telling him that I was concerned with the many abuses of power by both President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. He seemed to indicate to me that he was concerned also, but I guess he wasn't concerned enough to do something about it. Earlier this week, he had his chance, and he failed his constituents again.

Don't misunderstand me. I am quite happy with virtually everything else my congressman has done not only for the people of the NY-19, but for all Americans, including veterans. And he continues to oppose the use of nuclear power, especially while no safe method exists for the disposal of its deadly radioactive byproducts, and particularly when the lives and security of nearby residents are threatened by an unsafe plant. And I was pleased that he recently returned from a trip to Iraq more determined to end our involvement in the war there. And while all those were the right things to do, they did nothing to address the ever-growing threat to our constitutional and democratic way of life posed by the president and the vice president. I have even written to Speaker Nancy Pelosi about this.

It was when I spoke to him personally, and it remains to this day my number one concern. That is not to say I don't wish to see the war in Iraq ended, for that is why I and thirteen other people from our community participated in our monthly Peace March (to which, I am told, Mr. Hall was invited but could not attend. Perhaps next month, Mr. Hall? Second Saturday each month, 11:00 AM, Lakeside Park parking lot.) But the current war in Iraq and the danger of another military conflict in and with Iran, would not be a concern if Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney were no longer in power. And nothing that anyone can say, especially those two men, would ever convince me that they don't want a war with Iran. Were you paying attention to the rhetoric in the run up to the war with Iraq, Mr. Hall? Does anything they've been saying lately about Iran sound eerily like any of that to you? (It does to a lot of us, in case you weren't aware.) Now, here's the most important thing to consider: Was any of what they said about Iraq that justified going to war true? Any of it? Of course not, and we all know that. Nothing they said that was true justified going to war with Iraq, and nothing they said that justified going to war with Iraq was true.

So why, I ask you, would you even consider giving them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they won't ignore the will of Congress and attack Iran anyway, whether they actually pose a danger to us or not? Has the threat of consequences stopped them before? I don't see how since, to date, there have been none! Has the fact that they are operating outside the law stopped them before? Considering how often they've blatantly (and even proudly) done it, it's hard to argue that it might. Remember all those signing statements where the president said he would ignore the law if it infringed on his "inherent authority as Commander-in-Chief"? Would you care to point out to me where in the constitution it says that the Executive Branch decides what "authority" is "inherent" in the role of "Commander-in-Chief". You can't, because it isn't in there. That authority is found in Article I, Section 8. The Congress decides how the military, including its Commander-in-Chief, will behave and what constitutes lawful and unlawful conduct. A president who abuses that authority and ignores the law, as this one has done so many times in the past, has committed an impeachable offense. Go talk to a law professor at George Washington University. Go talk to John W. Dean. They'll tell you that there are numerous impeachable offenses to charge the president with. And there are also impeachable offenses for which the vice president can be removed from office. Impeachment is the only constitutional remedy for removing men like these before their terms expire. There are no recall elections nor votes of confidence during their terms. We have to depend on our Representatives and Senators to recognize when a president and vice president have overstepped their authority and violated the sacred trust placed in them by their fellow citizens. (And I don't just mean the five who put them there in 2000.)

I will end this as I did before, Mr. Hall, for it still remains true. I cannot support a candidate for Congress who does not believe in the oath of office every public servant in Washington is required to take, including you, sir. By not supporting the impeachment of either President Bush or Vice President Cheney, two men who have frequently subverted the constitution in an effort to have their own way despite the will of Congress, one of whom has accelerated a thirty-year personal vendetta to restore power to the White House, and one of whom once told an aide to "stop throwing the Constitution in [his] face." (You remember, that document he swore an oath to preserve, protect and defend?) He then continued, "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!" Are you are going to tell me, Mr. Hall, that these two men should not be removed from office through impeachment immediately, if not sooner? Do you honestly believe that if they remain in office, that on January 20, 2009, we won't already be in a hot war with Iran (and possibly Russia)? Do you think any president should be trusted with the kind of power these two men have amassed? I believe that most of your constituents would say, "No." It's up to you, Congressman John Hall. Remember your own oath of office and preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Sincerely,
Wayne A. Schneider

An Open Letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi

2007-11-10T19:44:00.000-05:00

Dear Speaker Pelosi,

It is my understanding, from an interview conducted with Rep Debbie Wasserman Schultz, that you would prefer that the Democrats in Congress spend no time impeaching, trying, convicting, and removing from office, Vice President Richard B. Cheney (nor President George W. Bush, for that matter). You would prefer, instead, that they focus on obtaining a bigger majority in the House and a Democrat in the White House in the 2008 elections. I would remind you, Madame Speaker, that the 2008 elections are still twelve months away, and the expiration of their terms of office another two-and-a-half months beyond that. That is more than enough time for them to start a war of choice with Iran. If you do not proceed with impeaching Vice President Cheney, the driving force behind the march to war with Iran, good men and women in our Armed Forces and innocent Iranian civilians alike will die. And you will have to live with the fact that you allowed them to serve out their crime-ridden terms unpunished and undeterred in their destruction of the Constitution you took an oath to support and defend against all enemies "foreign or domestic". President Bush and Vice President Cheney are two such domestic enemies, and it is your constitutional duty to defend the constitution against them. To prioritize your political party over your nation and your constitution is inexcusable.

Both of these men have claimed extraordinary, almost plenary, Executive powers found nowhere in the Constitution. They claim that the President has this "inherent authority" in his role as Commander-in-Chief during wartime (an excuse to always keep this country in a state of war, in case you hadn't noticed). The problem, Madame Speaker, is that they are making this up. No such authority exists anywhere in the Constitution. What does exist in the Constitution are the following:

Article I, Section 8:
The Congress shall have Power...
Clause 14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Clause 18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Clearly it is the Congress that decides how our military, including its Commander-in-Chief, will conduct themselves. Nowhere in Article II does it state that the President, acting as Commander-in-Chief or otherwise, during wartime or in peace, has the authority to do whatever he wants with the military. The authority he has comes from the Congress, and it comes with a trust, a trust that he won't abuse that authority. Yet, time after time, President Bush has done just that. He has even gone so far as to lie to Congress about a terrorist threat against the Congress in order to get them to grant him more unconstitutional authority to spy on Americans. And for no reason or rationale I can understand, you want to keep trusting that he won't overstep his authority one more time. You want to trust that he won't lead this country toward an unstoppable war with Iran. Have I mentioned that good men and women in our Armed Forces and innocent Iranian civilians alike will die if he starts another war?

You and your party have let the President and Vice President define just how far his "inherent authority" goes. And based on their many public statements, they believe that this authority includes taking us to war pre-emptively against another nation. They cannot claim that declaring war falls within the President's constitutional authority to determine foreign policy, for declaring war is a power exclusively granted to the Congress. You know that President Bush has been listening to neo-con war hawks like Norman Podhoretz, William Kristol, and Sen Joe Lieberman. All of these men have publicly advocated that we go to war against Iran. You also know, Madame Speaker, that President Bush has no interest in hearing the views of those who oppose his ideas. So not only is he not listening to anyone who might try to talk him out of a war with Iran, he must have already made up his mind about it to be listening to people who think that's what we should be doing. And what excuse do you think he's going to use? How true are his reasons going to be and, more importantly, will the true statements be justification for war? Remember everything they said about Iraq and Saddam Hussein? (If you don't, just listen to what's being said about Iran. It's very similar.) As time went on, one thing about those statements became clear: Everything that was a justification for war turned out not to be true, and everything that turned out to be true was not a justification for war. The rhetoric from this administration toward Iran is following that same path. Given the number of times that they have lied to the Congress and the American people, why on earth would you ever consider giving them the chance to resolve our differences peacefully with the rest of the world? I beg you to tell me what it is in their history that makes you think he will only go to war with Iran "as a last resort"? Why do you even accept the premise that any war with Iran is necessary in the first place? In all the intelligence estimates that you have been granted access to, have any reported on how many good men and women in our Armed Forces and innocent Iranians alike will die in a war of choice with Iran?

Madame Speaker, the ONLY way to ensure that President Bush and Vice President Cheney will not lie this country into another war of choice is if they are no longer in a position to do so. They are not going to stop themselves. The American people are counting on you to do that. You have the authority. You have the capability. You have the responsibility. Impeach them both for ignoring their oaths of office. To do otherwise is to ignore your own oath. How many good men and women of our Armed Forces and innocent Iranian civilians alike will have to die because you put loyalty to your political party ahead of loyalty to your Constitution?

Sincerely,
Wayne A. Schneider

Picking My Brain 07-11-04

2007-11-04T01:37:00.000-04:00

I'm concerned that the Mets are going to go after A-Rod. (That's Alex Rodriguez, a third baseman, and the highest paid player in baseball. If the Yankees wanted to keep him, they would have to fork over $350,000,000. (Did you know that the only reason his contract with the Yankees was as high as it was is because he insisted that he wanted to get paid twice as much as the next highest paid player? And now he thinks he deserves more?) I don't want him to wear a Mets uniform next year. Can he deliver on the home runs and RBIs? Of course he can, I have no doubt of that in my mind. It's just that he's not a team player, he's just a hired gun. And I don't think any player is worth that much money, especially when he chokes in the post season. A-Rod's post-season performance has been historically lacking. And the goal is to win the World Series, not just get ot the playoffs. The Mets should concentrate instead on fixing their pitching propblem, especially in the bullpen. We'll see what happens when the Winter Meetings come along.

I find it hard to believe that the nominee to be our nation's next Attorney General not only refuses to acknowledge that the interrogation technique known as "waterboarding" is torture (as several former Judge Advocates General said in a letter to Senate Judiciary Committe Chairman Pat Leahy), but that the Senate will likely confirm him thanks to such numbnuts as Sen Diane Feinstein and Sen Chuck Schumer (my own Senator). Just because the guy is from New York and was recommended by Schumer himself to the president is no excuse to stick by him anyway. The guy's clearly trying to keep the Bush Administration in the clear using bogus logic. He's using circular reasoning. "We don't torture. If waterboarding is torture, then we don't do it because we don't torture. But I can't tell you if waterboarding is torture." But when pressed if waterboarding was itself torture, he would respond, "If it is torutre, then we don't do it, because we don't torture." But notice that he's not saying we don't torture. (BTW, those are not precise quotes, just paraphrases of his reasoning. He may have actually said something close to that, but that's the gist.) Of course, if we truly never did waterboard anyone during our interrogations, then it would have very simple to say, "Waterboarding very definitely is torture, and we don't do it because it is." But he didn't. He said that if it is torture, then we're not doing it. That's not the same. Call your Senators and ask them to block this nomination, even though Bush would just recess appoint him anyway. Let him. Let it be another albatross around the Republicans' necks.

Finally, Barry Bonds, the man who used performance-enhancing drugs to break Hank Aaron's all-time MLB Home Run record told an interviewer that he would not go to the Hall of Fame induction ceremony if they display his record-breaking baseball with the asterisk branded on it by the man who bought it on e-bay and asked the fans what to do with it. He still feels that he did nothing wrong, and that he did not use any illegal substances. He has admitted that he has used a substance which he says was flaxseed oil, but that is only what the guy who gave it to him said it was, and Bonds didn't question it. Other players, however, who were given the same substance knew it was illegal. Bonds' ignorance was willful but not exculpatory. The record is still tainted, and Bonds is living in denial if he thinks otherwise.

My own feeling? Sure, induct him into the Hall of Fame, but only after he's dead. Same as for Pete Rose. Keep Rose's "lifetime ban" just that - his entire lifetime. Once Rose dies, they can put a plaque in there for him, too. But neither man should live to see the day when they are honored by being placed into the Hall of Fame. If we're lucky, maybe both men's accomplishments will have been surpassed by the time they die, and there won't be any need to induct them.

Call Your US Representative to Support H. Res 333

2007-11-02T21:33:00.000-04:00

Rep Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) will be introducing H. Res. 333, Articles of Impeachment against the Vice President. I urge each and every American out there (and if you are not American but have some American friends outside our borders, urge them to do the same) to call your US Representative's office and urge them to support H. Res 333. Before any vote on the privileged resolution, there will likely be a motion to table the bill, which means to set it aside and not vote on it. This will be how the cowards duck their constitutional responsibility.

Like all members of the federal government, US Representatives are under oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. Vice President Dick Cheney (and President Bush, for that matter) have been waging a personal war against the constitution for their own vainglory and lust for power. They must be stopped. One at a time. Start with the Vice president. This is how we maintain a peaceful transfer of power in this country (other than as a result of assassination by someone other than the one taking over). Impeach. Convict. Remove. Now. Before he launches a war against Iran, which you know he's anxious to do.

Picking My Brain 07-10-27

2007-10-29T22:40:00.000-04:00

I had to remind myself that whenever I want to smile, I just have to imagine George Stephanopoulos hosting This Week, and he has guests Robert Reich and Madeliene Albright, and the three of them are sitting in huge oversized chairs, so their legs all dangle down the front but come nowhere the near the floor. Like Edith Ann, from Laugh-In. Try it. I guarantee it will make you smile.

Talk about irony. When Ellen Degeneres had a sitcom, she had talked to everyone involved with the show about having Ellen's character (herself, more or less) finally come out of the closet. When one of the network executives heard about this, he said, "Why can't she just get a puppy?" So, Ellen's staff decided to refer to the episode in which Ellen's character comes out as, "The Puppy." Then she got into all that trouble over giving away a puppy.

Rudy Giuliani's divorce from Donna Hanover didn't happen until July 2002. Remember that famous stunt when his cell phone rang during the middle of a speech, and he tried to pretend it wasn't set up? Remember how he said that "ever since 9/11" he and Judith would call each other to say, "I love you." I hate to say it, but "Ever since 9/11"? He was still married to Donna Hanover at the time. (In fairness, I guess I should point out that he had already announced that he was separating from Hanover in May of 2001. She learned about it at the same time we all did, as Rudy announced it at a press conference before telling her. Republican values for you.)

A Day in the Lives of Two Joes

2007-10-27T16:15:00.000-04:00

Someone sent me the great piece below, called "A Day in the Life of Joe Republican." I thought it was a great example of the hypocrisy that many conservatives live when they denounce things they rely on every day of their lives as being liberal. Here is that piece first, and then we'll continue from there. I have no idea to whom I should give credit for the first part, as it was one of those things sent through the tubes of the Internets. As to the follow-up response to it that I'll discuss afterwards, I'll do the guy a favor and not mention his name (since I don't know it) on the off-chance that this was supposed to be satire, or humorously-intended. It just seems too much like how a conservative would "re-invent" Joe Republican, that I didn't think it was facetious. So, in case it was serious, I decided to counter it.

“A DAY IN THE LIFE OF JOE REPUBLICAN”

Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards. With his first swallow of water, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to ensure their safety and that they work as advertised.

All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer’s medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance - now Joe gets it too.

He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe’s bacon is safe to eat because some girly- man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained.

Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for the laws to stop industries from polluting our air.

He walks on the government-provided sidewalk to the subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation costs because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe’s employer pays these standards because Joe’s employer doesn’t want his employees to call the union.

If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he’ll get a worker compensation or an unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn’t think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

It is noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe’s deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Joe’s money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression.

Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Joe and the country would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime. Joe also forgets that his in addition to his federally subsidized student loans, he attended a state-funded university.

Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards to go along with the tax- payer funded roads.

He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers’ Home Administration because bankers didn’t want to make rural loans.

The house didn’t have electricity until some big- government liberal stuck his nose where it didn’t belong and demanded rural electrification.

He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberals made sure Dad could take care of himself so Joe wouldn’t have to.

Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn’t mention that the beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day. Joe agrees: “We don’t need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I’m a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of himself, just like I have.”-

Well, I sent that to a liberal friend of mine, and he in turn sent it to several of his friends, some of whom are conservative. One of his conservative buddies decided to answer the list back.

Of course, the web would not be “fair and balanced” if there weren’t an equal and opposite view out there. All it takes is Google, and changing one word in the title of your piece. Enjoy the dichotomy!

(signed) Mr. Fiscally Conservative Democrat

"A DAY IN THE LIFE OF JOE DEMOCRAT"

Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. He can only afford to drink four ounces a day because his tree-hugging governor raised the sales tax for the fifth time in four years to pay for gov't run Daycare, the Playboy channel for incarcerated sex-offenders, free needle-exchange programs, social services for illegal aliens, and condom-vending machines in preschool.

But he savors every drop, for next year he'll only be permitted to buy decaffeinated coffee because FDA testing found that force-feeding lab rats 20 gallons of coffee per day raised their cancer rate by .0003% per thousand.

With his first swallow of water, he rations his daily intake of medication. He can't afford all his meds because some stupid commie liberal ambulance-chaser drove pharmaceutical costs through the roof with frivolous law suits.

His meds are subsidized by his employer's medical plan because some liberal closed shop union workers fought their employers in order to garnish employee wages so that Joe would labor under the illusion that someone else is picking up the tab when in fact his employer is reaching into Joe's own back pocket.

He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is unsafe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for limited liability laws so that if anyone dies of food poisoning, the meat packing industry will pay a fine and pass the cost on to the customer.

In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient because some crybaby liberal thought that he was too stupid to know that imbibing a pint of shampoo might be harmful to his health.

Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. Joe begins to cough, choke, and gasp for breath because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for passage of the Kyoto treaty, allowing Third World countries to contaminate the world air supply with carbon monoxide.

Joe doesn't dare go out at night because some environmentalist wacko liberal lawmaker forbad the spraying or draining of malarial swamps.

Joe lost his first home to wildfire because some environmentalist wacko liberal lawmaker forbad the thinning old growth forest land.

His dad used to take the train to work. But when the Federal highway system destroyed our once-magnificent train system, Joe had to resort to the filthy, crime-ridden subway system because some fancy-pants liberal fought to disarm law-abiding citizens so that street gangs could mug commuters, then cop a plea based on post-traumatic slavery disorder.

Joe begins his work day. Joe's dad used to support his family at a middle class lifestyle on a single income. But it now takes two or three incomes to do the work of one because liberal bureaucrats drove up the cost of doing business through overregulation and usurious corporate taxation.

If Joe gets bored with his job, he can fake an injury and collect workman's comp., retiring to the slopes of Aspen to recuperate because some stupid liberal didn't think that employees might try to bilk the system.

It is noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some godless liberal thought that financial institutions should be able to defraud their customers and then file for bankruptcy, thereby shielding the pension and severance pay of board members while sticking the taxpayer with the tab.

Joe has to pay his federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided to subsidize college education so that universities, freed from competitive pressure, no longer had to keep tuition costs down.

Joe had the GPA and SAT scores to get into Harvard, but he had to settle for a community college because racial quotas kept him out while admitting inner city students who couldn't read or write, but had mastered multiple techniques of fitting a condom in high school sex-ed.
Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. He has to practice defensive driving because some America-hating liberal had alcoholism classified as a legally-protected disease and disability.

He arrives at his boyhood home. The countryside used to be a quiet, leisurely, pristine place to live until the Federal highway system and force bussing overran the bucolic countryside with suburban sprawl as urbanites fled the cities.

His family used to live off the land, in harmony with nature, until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification, powered by fossil fuel consumption.

He is happy to see his dad. Dad will be the last generation to retire on Social Security because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberals regularly raided the SS trust-fund to subsidize social programs, instead of allowing workers to invest their own earnings in compound interest-bearing accounts.

Joe's Dad was forced into early retirement, without a pension, because some environmentalist wacko liberal discovered a snail-darter in the cooling system of the local nuclear plant, where his dad used to work.

Joe's uncle used to be a cattle rancher until he was driven out of business because some environmentalist wacko liberal lawmaker kept him from shooting wolves that preyed on his livestock.

Joe's cousin used to work at the local lumber mill until he was laid off because some environmentalist wacko liberal discovered a spotted owl on timber land.

Joe's relatives used to receive assistance from the local chapter of the Salvation Army until it had to close its doors because some liberal civil libertarian sued it for refusing to offer domestic partnership benefits to all its employees.

Wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberals also invented a Constitutional right to an abortion, resulting in 45 million fewer workers to support the retirees.

In addition, wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberals promoted SS so that no able-bodied, adult child should ever be saddled with the onerous burden of caring for the elderly parents who devoted the best years of their lives caring for them when they were young and helpless.

Finally, wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberals lobbied for involuntary euthanasia so that burdensome parents can be put out of their children's misery.

As the day ends, Joe reflects on his nation, his liberties and his freedoms. He is free because conservative cold warriors kept commie lefty Liberals from unilaterally disarming America.

Joe resents having to be so dependent on gov't goods and services, but since he didn't ask for it, since--indeed--it was imposed on him anyway, against his will, and forcibly deducted from his hard-earned wages, the only way he can recoup a fraction of his losses is to play the hand he's been dealt--even if the deck is stacked against him.

But given a choice, he refuses to a vote for a Massachusetts liberal who was drafted; who tried to dodge the draft by requesting an education deferment to study in Paris; who volunteered for the Naval reserves (when his deferment was denied) to duck active duty service; who gamed the three-purple-hearts-and-your-out policy by writing up his own glowing after-action reports about his self-inflicted flesh-wounds; who, after receiving a dishonorable discharge, laid the groundwork for a successful political career by slandering his comrades-in-arms; who eventually ran for president on the platform that he served honorably in a dishonorable war; and who angrily denounced a war he authorized.
Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on NPR. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are good and right-wingers are bad. He doesn't mention that the beloved liberals have fought for the infringement of every freedom that Joe's old man used to enjoy and take for granted.

Well, where to begin? I guess I’ll start with the intro, since there are some things that need to be cleared up there.

Of course, the web would not be “fair and balanced” if there weren’t an equal and opposite view out there. All it takes is Google, and changing one word in the title of your piece. Enjoy the dichotomy!

I would enjoy it, if it was based on facts and the truth. Unfortunately, this list is not. And who the hell says that the internet has to be "fair and balanced"? Are you one of those people who thinks that if we're not hearing both sides of a dispute, we're not being properly informed of the truth? Did it ever occur to you that in a dispute where one side's take differs from the other's, it's usually because one of them is lying? Or is it that you think there is nothing wrong with lying to get your way?

"A DAY IN THE LIFE OF JOE DEMOCRAT"

Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. He can only afford to drink four ounces a day because his tree-hugging governor raised the sales tax for the fifth time in four years to pay for gov't run Daycare, the Playboy channel for incarcerated sex-offenders, free needle-exchange programs, social services for illegal aliens, and condom-vending machines in preschool.

Not so fast, Joe! I checked a recent store receipt to confirm my suspicions. If Joe thinks he has to ration his coffee because the governor raised the sales tax rate, then Joe needs to get out more. Coffee beans that you grind yourself (or at the store after you purchase them) aren't taxable. So, go ahead and have that second cup, Joe.

But he savors every drop, for next year he'll only be permitted to buy decaffeinated coffee because FDA testing found that force-feeding lab rats 20 gallons of coffee per day raised their cancer rate by .0003% per thousand.

Not quite. It must have been the caffeine that was determined to be bad, not the coffee itself, otherwise Joe wouldn't even be able to get decaf next year. When Sacharrin was found to have caused cancer in lab animals given doses equivalent to drinking 800 cans of soda a day (that's 75 gallons, not 20, and it would be physically impossible to drink that much in one day, anyway), they required that the product carry a warning to that effect. They haven't yet banned it, even though subsequent tests confirmed the potential cancer risks (see article). Drinking 10 gallons of just water would kill you, so forget about 20, let alone 75. Besides, do you really think they'll ever ban coffee outright in this country? They could announce that drinking coffee causes your sex organs to fall off, and they would still have a hard time banning it. Just never going to happen, especially not for the reasons Joe here thinks.

With his first swallow of water, he rations his daily intake of medication. He can't afford all his meds because some stupid commie liberal ambulance-chaser drove pharmaceutical costs through the roof with frivolous law suits.

Wrong again. The high cost to us of prescription medicine has nothing to do with "frivolous lawsuits". That's an old chestnut that the right still likes to throw out once in a while. Yes, there are people who file lawsuits for what appear to be stupid reasons. But if it wasn't frivolous, then it must have had merit. Which means that the pharmaceutical company probably did do something wrong for which they should be made to pay. It shouldn't be profitable to rip off customers and be protected by the law. But the most important hing to keep in mind is that the problem isn't that meds cost so much, it's that they charge so much. And one reason they charge so much is to get back some of the excessive money they spend on advertising. A company rep would drive away and give away boxes of the stuff to local doctors. Some of them, in turn, give them to their patients several at a time (if it is safe to self-medicate, such as heartburn). I was once given a pill by a doctor that came in a free sample pack from the pharmaceutical manufacturer. The packaging alone for that one pill had to cost close to two dollars. (I know this because my job involves knowing such things.) It's all done in the name of advertising, to get their drug's brand name out into the public's mind. Maybe they could save themselves some money if they spent more on bringing advertising costs down and less on trying to convince you to convince your doctor to write you a prescription.

His meds are subsidized by his employer's medical plan because some liberal closed shop union workers fought their employers in order to garnish employee wages so that Joe would labor under the illusion that someone else is picking up the tab when in fact his employer is reaching into Joe's own back pocket.

Joe is laboring under an illusion. An illusion that his employer-provided medical insurance is money coming out of his own back pocket. Backing up a moment, if his meds are "subsidized by his employer's medical plan", then how come "He can't afford all his meds"? Is he on a boatload of meds per day? Is he a hypochondriac? If his meds weren't subsidized at all, which ones would he choose to take? Lucky for him he doesn't have to make that hard choice. As for the money for this coming out of his wallet, Joe doesn't understand how it works. You see, it's a "benefit" that your employer offers you. Your employer sees it as an incentive to want you to keep working for them. It has a certain dollar value that the company is paying. They can write it off as a business expense. (At some companies, if you want to cover your family, you pay the extra out of your own pocket. That way, everyone in the company is getting the same benefit, and not being given more just because they reproduce more than others.) At the same time they do it because they want you to take care of your health, because a healthy worker is a more productive worker. (Some, like my bosses, do it because it's the morally right thing to do, and they feel good about being able to do it. It's a family-owned company, so any profits would go to the few shareholders in the family. It literally is money out of their own pockets to offer it to us, and we are a small enough company that we would be exempt from any laws that mandate they do it.) But if you choose not to accept a company-offered health plan, they will only pay you what they would pay for the plan they offer, provided you can prove coverage under an equivalent or better plan. Otherwise, you pay for that plan out of your own pocket. Joe should talk to someone at his company to have his benefits program explained to him.

He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is unsafe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for limited liability laws so that if anyone dies of food poisoning, the meat packing industry will pay a fine and pass the cost on to the customer.

Wrong again, Joe. I don't know who's been teaching you what Liberalism is versus what Conservatism is about, but I can promise you that if liability laws are limited "so that if anyone dies of food poisoning, the meat packing industry will pay a fine and pass the cost on to the customer", it's not because liberals fought for that. It's because conservatives, especially "fiscal conservatives", fought for that. Hardcore fiscal conservatives believe that anything that hurts the bottom line profits of a company is inherently bad, so they like to see no government regulation at all. That includes regulatory standards regarding health and safety. Too costly, they say. Dead customers don't give a lot of repeat business, I say.

In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient because some crybaby liberal thought that he was too stupid to know that imbibing a pint of shampoo might be harmful to his health.

Not quite, Joe. You see, as technology advances and new ways are found to simulate what people use to use in their household products but can't any more (sometimes because the species of creature that produced that ingredient has been hunted to extinction), we're finding out that the human body sometimes reacts2 badly to these things. Warning labels that point out that the product contains ingredients known to cause allergic reactions in people help save lives. And is Joe in the habit of drinking just anything that comes in a bottle of some kind?

Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. Joe begins to cough, choke, and gasp for breath because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for passage of the Kyoto treaty, allowing Third World countries to contaminate the world air supply with carbon monoxide.

That would more likely be because the US refused to take the lead on Global Warming and Climate Change. We can't expect the developing nations of the Third World to do anything about their own environmental pollution if we don't show them how it's done. What happened to "good old American know-how"? How come our corporations have such a defeatist attitude when it comes to trying to do something about not polluting the air that the breathe and the water that we drink? The longer we take to get started, the further we fall behind the rest of the world who are doing something about it. Joe should accept that the climate is undergoing changes resulting in weather patterns we are not used to seeing, and for which we are presently under-prepared to handle. Add to that the impending oil shortages and rising energy costs (even without the greed exhibited by certain corporations), there comes an even greater incentive to stop trying to pump as many dollars out of the ground and into the pockets of the people who are financing and supporting the very people with whom we are supposed to be at war, and start helping small businesses in this country profit from the wide-open market of renewable enery sources right here in the US. Obviously there is not a one-size-fits-all solution, but the people who live in areas that get at least a decent amount of year-round sunshine should be able to buy affordable solar panels, and the people who live in areas that get a lot of wind at least some part of the year should be able to buy wind-power generators, and the people who live in areas where there is a good deal of warmth underground should be able to buy affordable thermal energy systems. There are present-day technology, real-time solutions to the problem now, and continued support by the federal government (instead of giving billions to the oil industry to explore for oil instead of making them pay for it themselves) will help bring down the price and, at the same time, do something that might help make our biosphere a little less unfriendly to us humans. A little less profit-taking, a little more planet-saving.

Joe doesn't dare go out at night because some environmentalist wacko liberal lawmaker forbad the spraying or draining of malarial swamps.

Yes, because sometimes the government would send out helicopters to spray mosquitos while kids were outside playing. So their parents exercised their First Amendment rights and petitioned the government for a redress of grievances. Besides, does Joe not own a jacket? Has his local merchant made the business decision to not stock bug repellent, even though he's apparently located near an undrained swamp?

Joe lost his first home to wildfire because some environmentalist wacko liberal lawmaker forbad the thinning old growth forest land.

First of all, I'm sorry Joe lost his home and the memories within. Seriously. That kind of thing sucks. That having been said, did Joe know the area was susceptible to wildfires when he bought the place? Did he understand the risk? Did he have homeowner's insurance? Because he doesn't appear to be homeless today, so he must have had the money to buy another house. Did he move to some place less dangerous? It's his choice. It's a free country. What's his point? That there would never have been a wildfire if the old growth forest land had been thinned out so that some timber company could make a buck? Has Joe ever heard of lightning? These things are going to happen, regardless of how much thinning of forests is done. It can reduce the chance of someone losing his home to wildfire, but it won't eliminate it. Then there's always the occassional arsonist, as in the recent California fires. (My heart goes out to those people. If there's anything I or your fellow citizens can do, just ask.)

His dad used to take the train to work. But when the Federal highway system destroyed our once-magnificent train system, Joe had to resort to the filthy, crime-ridden subway system because some fancy-pants liberal fought to disarm law-abiding citizens so that street gangs could mug commuters, then cop a plea based on post-traumatic slavery disorder.

Is Joe referring to the marketplace of ideas favoring the Eisenhower Interstate Highway System over the rail line? And that other stuff is illogical. Perhaps Joe Democrat's creator isn't familiar with the mass transit system in some areas. I can take a train down to NYC, but once there, there are no above-ground trains to take, so I would have to take the subway to get around within the city. So the loss of the above-ground railway system to the Interstate Highway System would have had nothing to do with why Joe's father started taking the subway to work. (By the way, it hasn't stopped people from taking the train down to the City from where I live; both the trains and the highway are used. I know, I drive on the highway and over the rail tracks every day) At least, it doesn't make any sense where I live.

Joe begins his work day. Joe's dad used to support his family at a middle class lifestyle on a single income. But it now takes two or three incomes to do the work of one because liberal bureaucrats drove up the cost of doing business through overregulation and usurious corporate taxation.

No, greedy corporations drove up the cost to consumers, and wages lagged behind inflation, so families had to come up with more jobs among them to make ends meet. But those Big Oil Company execs are doing all right, aren't they? They sure look like they're getting their three square meals a day (and then some). That's Capitalism for you. The rich get richer and the fat get fatter.

If Joe gets bored with his job, he can fake an injury and collect workman's comp., retiring to the slopes of Aspen to recuperate because some stupid liberal didn't think that employees might try to bilk the system.

That would be a crime. Why would Joe automatically assume he could get away with insurance fraud which is illegal and has severe penalities? Does he think no one ever checks on these things? I've seen many newspaper reports of city officials and employees supposedly out on disability doing things they shouldn't be physically able to do if they were as badly injured as they claim. They usually get caught. Joe would have to be an idiot to think that this made sense as a financial security plan. But he would get free room, board and clothing in prison.

It is noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some godless liberal thought that financial institutions should be able to defraud their customers and then file for bankruptcy, thereby shielding the pension and severance pay of board members while sticking the taxpayer with the tab.

How could Joe believe that Liberals would want banking institutions to get away with ripping people off? I have found that it usually pro-business Conservatives who like to fight for these kinds of things. Republicans, especially, like to tout "Caveat Emptor" ("Let The Buyer Beware") as the best form of Capitalism.

Joe has to pay his federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided to subsidize college education so that universities, freed from competitive pressure, no longer had to keep tuition costs down.

How exactly does making college affordable for everyone raise the price? I don't understand. Joe thinks that because education is subsidized, the colleges and universities would have no incentive to keep tuition costs down. How would constantly raising the tuition costs attract more people? Or would that only attract the kind of people who equate quality with price? Maybe they wanted to subsidize their athletic teams? Besides, if more students can afford to attend a college, there is less incentive for them to need to raise tuition, because they will be takinig in more people now that it's affordable. It's exactly like the theory that says if you lower income taxes, you'll take in more revenue.

Joe had the GPA and SAT scores to get into Harvard, but he had to settle for a community college because racial quotas kept him out while admitting inner city students who couldn't read or write, but had mastered multiple techniques of fitting a condom in high school sex-ed.

Just because Joe failed condom-fitting in high school sex-ed is no reason to be jealous. Besides, if Joe's GPA and SAT scores were good enought ot get into Harvard, then why did he end up in a community college? He must have been good enough for another prestigious school. Sounds like Joe is easily discouraged. Maybe that's why he failed condom-fitting.

Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. He has to practice defensive driving because some America-hating liberal had alcoholism classified as a legally-protected disease and disability.

Wrong again, Joe. It's not because alcoholism is a disease (and it is, trust me, I know) that Joe has to practice defensive driving, it's because it's too damn easy to get a license to drive! In my state (and each state varies), when I got my "Operator's License", I had to answer a 20-question, multiple-choice test. I needed an 80% score or better (16 out of 20), and of the four questions regarding road signs, I was allowed to get up to two wrong. (I aced my written test, by the way. First and only time.) Then there's a very simple road test you have to take where the purpose is to see if you can operate the vehicle correctly. Note that that's "operate the vehicle", not "drive". You learn just how to drive in my state after you get your license. And that's why we need to practice defensive driving on the highways - because not everyone who is given a license to drive has the ability, talent, and intelligence to do so. And doesn't Joe's auto insurance company offer a discount to drivers who take a defensive driving course?

He arrives at his boyhood home. The countryside used to be a quiet, leisurely, pristine place to live until the Federal highway system and force bussing overran the bucolic countryside with suburban sprawl as urbanites fled the cities.

Many people out there may be too young to remember the big debates over forced bussing. This was something ordered by the courts when certain communities (mainly in the South, but elsewhere in the country, too) refused to integrate their schools quickly enough after Brown v. Board of Education (or, as it's officially known in legal circles, Oliver L. Brown et.al. v. the Board of Education of Topeka (KS) et.al.). I wouldn't be so quick to blame that on Liberals. Maybe if bigots - who tend to be conservative - hadn't fought and resisted integrating their schools so much, the courts would not have imposed that bussing plan. (Many who resisted pointed to the wording of the Supreme Court's decision that said they must integrate their schools "with all deliberate speed". Instead of interpreting that to mean "as quickly as possible", they chose to claim it meant "take your time".)

His family used to live off the land, in harmony with nature, until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification, powered by fossil fuel consumption.

Oh, Joe. Where do you get your facts? The Rural Electrification Act of 1936, one of the most successful programs in government history, allowed the federal government to provide loans to communities who needed to upgrade their electric service. But the source of the power to provide the electricity did not need to be fossil fuel-based. There is also hydro-electric power. And that "big-government liberal" to whom you refer must have been President Franklin D. Roosevelt, whose programs to help lift us out of the Depression really began the modern Conservative movement. Today's Conservatism defines itself by what it's against, not what it's for. And it's against everything FDR did to rescue the country.

He is happy to see his dad. Dad will be the last generation to retire on Social Security because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberals regularly raided the SS trust-fund to subsidize social programs, instead of allowing workers to invest their own earnings in compound interest-bearing accounts.

I am 47 and, as far as I know, the money for my Social Security retirement will still be there when I need it. A common falsehood promulgated by the right is that SS will go bankrupt around 2040. This is false. In 2041, money coming in to the fund will no longer exceed money going out of the fund. It will not be bankrupt. That is a lie the conservatives want you to believe so that you'll support privatization of Social Security. But privatizing Social Security means that the guarantee that your funds will be there is gone, because you will be forced to risk your money on the stock market. Just because the market has gained money overall throughout its existence, that does not mean that everyone who invests in the market will make money. And putting your retirement funds into risky investments defeats the entire purpose of having a guaranteed retirement income system.

Joe's Dad was forced into early retirement, without a pension, because some environmentalist wacko liberal discovered a snail-darter in the cooling system of the local nuclear plant, where his dad used to work.

Joe's Dad must live in Tennessee or Alabama, the only two place where snail darters can be found. They live in gravel and sand shoals, not nuclear power plant cooling systems. I suspect that Joe's Dad lied to him about why he lost his job. Maybe Joe's Dad lost his job due to incompetence? That does still happen, despite what conservatives blame liberals for.

Joe's uncle used to be a cattle rancher until he was driven out of business because some environmentalist wacko liberal lawmaker kept him from shooting wolves that preyed on his livestock.

Wolves are such misunderstood creatures. Like all animals, they serve an important ecological and environmental function. They don't simply attack livestock, they also eat other small creatures, too. This, in turn, keeps the small creatures from overrunning the place, spreading disease and being a nuisance. It also keeps the small woodland creatures from eating too much of the plant vegetation and nuts. This leaves more plant life to take in carbon dioxide and give off oxygen, which we humans need to breathe. It's a great Circle of Life. Perhaps he could have kept his ranching business if he could find a better way to protect his livestock from not just wolves, but bears and other predators, too. It's one of the things you have to put up with if you want to live out in the country.

Joe's cousin used to work at the local lumber mill until he was laid off because some environmentalist wacko liberal discovered a spotted owl on timber land.

Like the wolves above, owls are predators that keep the population of the smaller animals from going wild. And if Joe's cousin's lumber mill was getting their wood from only one place in the forest, then they weren't going to be around long anyway. (I noticed Joe Democrat's problems seem to be digressing from Joe Republican's, but that's okay. He's still wrong.)

Joe's relatives used to receive assistance from the local chapter of the Salvation Army until it had to close its doors because some liberal civil libertarian sued it for refusing to offer domestic partnership benefits to all its employees.

I wondered what this was about, so I looked up the story. The Salvation Army is a religious organization that wants to receive funding from the government. [From the link:]"The group is handed millions of dollars of both federal and local funding at the same time as it fights to overturn local laws banning discrimination based on sexual orientation. In 1998, the San Francisco-based Human Rights Commission, one of the largest gay groups in the country, ordered SA to offer domestic partnership benefits or lose a $3.5-million city contract. For one whole year SA refused to comply, and was finally forced to forfeit its contract." I do not know if that meant it had to close its doors to the needy, or that it simply had less to work with in doing so. But other charitable organizations exist that could have helped out Joe's relatives.

Wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberals also invented a Constitutional right to an abortion, resulting in 45 million fewer workers to support the retirees.

There is little point in getting into a debate over whether or not a woman should be allowed to terminate her own pregnancy. She most definitely should have that right. But where Joe goes all mentally irregular is where he tries to deduce that had the Supreme Court not decided that the States may not deny a woman the right to have an abortion during the first tri-mester of pregnancy, when the State had no interest beyond the woman to care about, they were not inventing a right that didn't already exist. If you'll read your Ninth Amendment to the Constitution, it says:

Article IX.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

In simple terms, that means that just because the Constitution did not spell out a right that we as citizens have, it did not mean that we didn't have it. But that's beside the point.

Just because there have been some 45 million abortions in the US (which is where I am assuming that he is getting that number; I don't really feel like doing his research, too), it does not logically follow that there would be 45 million more workers earning money and paying taxes into the treasury. For one thing, not all abortions took place long enough ago that those "potential" people would be working today. And a number of those would probably have died too young to contribute much, if anything at all. The law of averages tells us that. It's really just thrown out there at inappropriate times during other discussions to register a personal disgust on the part of the speaker to the idea of woman being allowed to control their own bodies. I treat them as baseless smears and consider them meaningless.

In addition, wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberals promoted SS so that no able-bodied, adult child should ever be saddled with the onerous burden of caring for the elderly parents who devoted the best years of their lives caring for them when they were young and helpless.

Did Joe's parents take care of their parents when Joe was young? And who says that "able-bodied, adult child[ren]" can't take care of their parents if they wanted to anyway? This is really a non-sensical argument. Besides, I thought Joe was on a lot of meds up above. Is Joe an able-bodied adult? If so, then why is he on so much medication? And if he isn't, wouldn't he appreciate that he doesn't "have to be saddled with the onerous burden of caring for [his] elderly parents" without at least a little help from his fellow Americans (which is what Social Security is)? It's part of that whole philosophy of us watching out for each other. That's what our taxes do. We all chip in to help all of us meet our needs, not just the rich and strong and able-bodied. All of us. Sorry if that conflicts with the Conservative ideal of "Every Man For himself."

Finally, wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberals lobbied for involuntary euthanasia so that burdensome parents can be put out of their children's misery.

Joe must be fantasizing here, because no normal person would consider euthenizing his parent against their will just to relieve his own misery. It takes a sick mind to think that this is why the Right-to-Die battle is being fought. There are many people who feel that being kept alive artificially, just to gain a few more weeks or months, at such a great cost to their family, is not worth the suffering and misery of existing pointlessly. If someone is going to die from something at any time soon, and nothing can be done to prevent it, and the only thing to look forward to is possibly weeks of pain and discomfort, then why shouldn't that person have the right to say they wish to end their own life? Why should they be forced to contrinue living against their will? Who are we to say a person must suffer, so that we don't have to let them go?

As the day ends, Joe reflects on his nation, his liberties and his freedoms. He is free because conservative cold warriors kept commie lefty Liberals from unilaterally disarming America.

Excuse me. I am a Liberal Air Force veteran and proud of it, and I was stationed at Ramstein AB, West Germany, from 1986-1988, during the Cold War. Conservatives weren't the only ones protecting your right to say such things. I was, too.

Joe resents having to be so dependent on gov't goods and services, but since he didn't ask for it, since--indeed--it was imposed on him anyway, against his will, and forcibly deducted from his hard-earned wages, the only way he can recoup a fraction of his losses is to play the hand he's been dealt--even if the deck is stacked against him.

Does Joe live in a Blue State? If not, then his state is likely receiving more back from the federal government than they send there in taxes. No one is making Joe use those programs. Besides, if people like Joe, who probably doesn't really need the help, didn't use it, it would cost less to the taxpayers and increase your annual tax refund.

But given a choice, he refuses to a vote for a Massachusetts liberal who was drafted; who tried to dodge the draft by requesting an education deferment to study in Paris; who volunteered for the Naval reserves (when his deferment was denied) to duck active duty service; who gamed the three-purple-hearts-and-your-out policy by writing up his own glowing after-action reports about his self-inflicted flesh-wounds; who, after receiving a dishonorable discharge, laid the groundwork for a successful political career by slandering his comrades-in-arms; who eventually ran for president on the platform that he served honorably in a dishonorable war; and who angrily denounced a war he authorized.

About the only thing I can say in response to this diatribe, is that Joe is seriously misinformed about a number of things. Perhaps a search through credible sources (meaning sources whose only agenda is to uncover the truth) may help Joe learn just how wrong that entire paragraph was. Oh, wait. John Kerry is, indeed, a Massachusetts Liberal. That part is correct. READ A BOOK NOT WRITTEN BY LIARS!

Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on NPR. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are good and right-wingers are bad. He doesn't mention that the beloved liberals have fought for the infringement of every freedom that Joe's old man used to enjoy and take for granted.

And then Joe got stopped at an armed checkpoint. It was the third one he had come across that day since the terror alert level was raised to Red and Martial law was declared. He had managed to talk his way through the last two because he knew one of the guys from work who was manning each post. One of them had just returned from his third tour of duty in Iraq. He was relieved to hear that he would be sent home stateside, until he found out two weeks later just why that was. President George Bush had declared Martial Law just hours after Co-President Dick Cheney had already done so.

It was discovered through warrantless wiretapping of the internet that an undergraduate student in Tehran was researching how to make nuclear weapons on the internet and was close to discovering a potential way to do so which, if modified correctly, and built to a precision unachievable in his country, and tested after many years to see if it could truly work, might possibly give him the knowledge to sell to the highest terrorist bidder and thus endanger us all. According to the two presidents' foreign policies, Iran must never be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons, nor learn how to make a nuclear bomb, nor even read books about nuclear bombs. And since you need nucl,ear material to make a nuclear bomb, they may not even do anything that comes close to learning how to make a nuclear reactor. What Americans did not know then was that Iran was not even allowed to look at pictures of nuclear power plants, or they risked unilateral invasion and regime change. They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Ain't that the truth where George Bush and Dick Cheney are involved? A lot of secrecy helps, too.

Oh, and don't forget to enjoy the American way of life made possible by Liberals.

Your Money Is No Good Here

2007-10-27T10:04:00.000-04:00

Apple computer has decided that your money isn't good enough any more to buy their new iPhones. They are no longer accepting cash as payment for the product and limiting sales to two per person. Is this even legal?

They estimate that of the 1.4 million iPhones sold so far, about 250,000 of them are bought for the purpose of being resold. They don't explain how they come up with this number, but since they were selling as many as five to a customer, perhaps they assumed that anyone buying more than two was going to sell the rest after hacking into it and making it usable on other cellular networks. On the other hand, how do they know that someone with a family of five wasn't buying one for everyone?

When I look at my dollar bills, I see the following note: THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS PUBLIC AND PRIVATE. It sounds to me like they cannot legally refuse cash as payment, but it turns out they can. According to the Treasury Dept, "There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise." So a bus line can refuse to accept pennies or bills as payment (remember Star Trek IV? "What does that mean, 'exact change only'?"), and movie theaters and convenience stores can refuse to accept large denomination bills (usually anything above a $20.)

So, if you want to buy an iPhone now, you better have good credit and a large limit on your card. And if you plan on reselling those iPhones, just remember that they can trace your purchases now. If an illegally re-programmed iPhone finds its way to the hands of the cops, they will be able to trace the original purchase back to you.

Bush Is Not As Powerful As He Thinks

2007-10-21T21:44:00.000-04:00

I just want to point out something about the Constitution that I think has been overlooked, and quite possibly for a long time, but especially since President Bush took office. Bush and his people keep talking about "the inherent authority of the President as Commander-in-Chief during wartime." What they don't point out is: There's no such thing in the Constitution. Go ahead. Show me where it points out just what these powers are. You can't, because it doesn't, because they aren't there. This whole business about how the president has extraordinary powers inherent as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces is a fantasy, forced against the will of logic into the law. One could have called it a "rape" and not been far off. But what is the legal basis of this concept? First, let's review exactly, and in full detail, what the constitution says about the president's role as Commander-in-Chief.

Article II, Section. 2.
Clause 1: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;

That's it. That's all it says. It does not say that he may abandon the constitution when ordering the military into action. It does not say that he can ignore the rules under which the military is required to operate in carrying out his commands. Before I go further, I feel I should point out that right above this oft-referenced part of the Constitution, the part that, for all the Bush Administration cares is the only relevant part of the Constitution, is this even more important one.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 8:
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

In the Enumerated Powers Clause of the Constitution, this is what it says about the authority of Congress to determine how the military may be used during war or peace.:

Article I, Section 8, :
Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To...
Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal(*), and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
Clause 12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
Clause 13: To provide and maintain a Navy;
Clause 14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
(*)A Letter of Marque and Reprisal is a license granted by a state to a private citizen to capture the merchant ships of another nation. So not even the president can order someone to do this.)

To me, that clearly means that it is the Congress, and not the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces (be they at war or not, and I will get to that in a moment), who decides how the military will behave. So where does President Bush get that the idea that he decides how the Armed Forces behave, when temporarily under his command?

Remember that the Founding Fathers never intended that there be a permanent Army. They wrote into the Constitution a provision that allowed the Congress to raise and support an Army, but no appropriation could be for more than two years. (So how do the contractors working for the DoD get deals for longer than two years, if no appropriation shall be for longer than that? Separate question. In fact, how does this permit them to sign a four-year contract with me when I enlisted in the Air Force in 1982? Another separate question.) And they also decided that the Congress would decide how our military personnel, whether in wartime or not, would behave. Now, should the Armed Forces have been needed, the Founders didn't want them to be under their own command. (That's called a junta.) So they assigned the role of Commander-in-Chief to the highest elected office in the country, which happened to be the President of the United States. But, in his role as Commander-in-Chief, he is still bound by the rules the Congress lays down for behavior of our Armed Forces.

The Founders never intended that the President could take command of the Armed Forces, who are governed by the rules that Congress laid down, and institute his own rules that are contrary to what the Congress dictated. If he were to order a soldier to do something that contravened the rules the Congress set in place, then he would be giving them an illegal order under the law. (The law being what the Congress writes, not the president. See Article I.) That soldier would be perfectly within his rights to respectfully refuse to carry out that order with impunity. He (the soldier, and a hypothetical one who could be male or female, so please forgive me for not inclusing both genders each time - I liked the women I served with) took an oath to obey "the lawful orders of those appointed over" him. Any unlawful order would be as valid as an order from you or me. The president does not have the authority to order the troops to do illegal things. Bush thinks he does.

And therein lies the problem. In order for Bush to be able to order the military to do his bidding, he must have a war going on for him to assume the role of Commander-in-Chief. (By the way, you noticed how often Republicans running for "President of the United States" refer to that office as the "Commander-in-Chief", as if that was the title to which they were trying to get elected? That should tell you what they intend to do with the office of President.) And since he feels that during wartime, he is not bound in any way, shape or form by the rules for the military established by Congress (even though the role of "Commander-in-Chief" must be seen as being a member of the military bound by the same rules as everyone else), he believes that his powers during wartime are unlimited. So he must always keep us in a state of war. Without a war, he has no "inherent authority as Comander-in-Chief during wartime." Do I honestly believe that he is that petty? I can't be 100% certain about Bush though I truly believe he can be, but I am about Cheney, and it is Cheney who is the real power behind the rise of the Imperial Presidency.

For it Dick Cheney who brought in David Addington and John Yoo into the administration to write their policies of the president's powers during wartime, a state they intended to keep the country in for their entire time in office. They are the ones who took Ronald Reagan's theory of how to run a State Government (as in, the United States, not a State Nation) called The Unitary Executive. It essentially said that all Executive Branch decisions and authority in a state government should derive from a single person, the Governor, and that there not be so much power distributed to independent agencies. At least, that's the bare bones gist of it. Cheney's people tried to apply that theory to running the federal government, though it could never work. It could never work because it was contrary to how our federal system of government was designed to operate. You see, the Constitution only guaranteed the people that their states would provide a republican (small "r") form of government, meaning that they would be represented in their government body by someone else who would also represent many others. There was no guarantee made that the people coulsd have a hand in choosing those representatives in government, but that was left up to the states. Most of them saw the wisdom in letting the people choose their elected officials, except for the US Senators who, by the Constitution, would be picked by the state governments (either the legislatures, or the governor alone, or however they decided to do it; it was Democracy, and it was all the buzz!) In turn, those states were otherwise free to decide for themselves how they wished to govern themselves in all matters not empowered to the Congress.

But when it came to the federal government, the Constitution spelled out clear delineations on who would do what. The law of the land would be determined by the Congress. This power was plenary, except where the constitution specified it to the states or to the people. The President was empowered to carry out the law of the land as written by Congress. If you will recall his oath of office above, that is pretty much what his constitutional duty is, along with preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution of the United States. Nothing about carrying out a political agenda. Other than being empowered to determine foreign policy, nothing about the right to start a war whenever he felt like it. That power was reserved to the Congress. And nothing whatsoever about treating the Constitution of the United States like a "goddamned piece of paper". In fact, one could easily argue, quite the opposite. And the Supreme Court (and such inferior courts as Congress may create) would determine how to interpret the law in a manner consistent with the Constitution. The real Constitution. Not the one they wished they took an oath to preserve, protect abnd defend.

George Bush and Dick Cheney falsely believe that they have the authority to do whatever they want to do when acting to protect the country. But protecting the country is not what they are sworn to do. They are sworn to protect the constitution, and no amount of "breaking-the-constitution-to-protect-it"-type logic can justify their actions. When they diverted some $700,000,000 from fighting the war in Afghanistan (which, at the time, was an authorized use of the money, for fighting in Afghanistan, that is) to begin planning the invasion of Iraq (which, at the time, was not an authorized use of the money, for planning the invasion, that is), they violated the Constitution. When they detained people on the battlefield and fully intended to hold them indefinitely, never bring them to trial for anything, and periodically use torture to obtain unreliable information, they violated the Constitution. When they signed bills passed by Congress into law and then quietly issued accompanying signing statements that, for all practical purposes, said that the president would not adhere to any law which he felt infringed on his "inherent authority as Commander-in-Chief during wartime", they violated the Constitution. I ask you, I implore you, please explain to me, why are we allowing either of these gentlemen to serve out the remainder of their terms of office, when they clearly and plainly have no intention of obeying the laws or the Constitution they each took an oath to uphold? Why?

You Broke My Heart, John Hall

2007-10-19T23:33:00.000-04:00

Recently I wrote to my Congressman, John Hall (NY-19), former member and co-founder of the rock group Orleans, whose hits "Dance With Me" and "Still The One" can still be heard on the radio; and a lifelong anti-nuclear activist, to ask him to support H. Res 333, a resolution introduced by Rep Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney. Here, re-printed without permission, is the form letter e-mail response I received from his office. (He's a public official, answering public correspondence. This letter belongs to you, too.)

October 18, 2007

Dear Mr. Schneider,

Thank you for contacting me regarding your desire to see impeachment charges brought against Vice President Cheney. I appreciate hearing your thoughts on this important issue.

I believe that the Bush Administration has led our country in the wrong direction and that Vice President Cheney has played a major role in shaping the Administration's policies. The Bush-Cheney Administration took us into a devastating war in Iraq based on false information and misleading statements, has undermined the criminal justice system, and created enormous federal deficits with its misplaced priorities and reckless spending.

I strongly condemn the Vice President's policies and conduct, but I do not support impeachment proceedings against him at this time. I believe that the effort to move forward with impeachment would impair Congress's ability to put America back on the right path. Instead, I want to work in this Congress to reverse the disastrous policies of the Bush Administration and to restore America's reputation in the world, rather than removing a Vice President whose term expires in January 2009.

I am a cosponsor of a resolution censuring President Bush for his commutation of the prison sentence for the Vice President's former Chief of Staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. I also support continuing investigations by Congressional committees into the activities of the Bush Administration. As these investigations proceed, Congress must take strong action to address inappropriate or illegal conduct including bringing articles of impeachment should the Committees determine that is warranted.

Please fell free to contact me again whenever I might be of assistance.

Sincerely,

John Hall
Member of Congress

I can't tell you how disappointed I was to be given that bullshit "moving forward by working to change Bush's disastrous policies"-line. Don't they get it? Bush will never let them do that. Never in a million years, let alone the next 15 months (and about 12 hours, but who's counting?). The only way to stop or reverse Bush's disastrous policies is to remove Bush and Cheney from the picture. Through impeachment! (What were you thinking? I wasn't, because that could be a crime, so don't even suggest it.)

Dick Cheney is on a mission from the God inside his own head to elevate the Office of President of the United States to one equivalent, for all practical purposes, to an Imperial Presidency. It's been his objective for more than thirty years, and he has made no secret of that goal. What he has made a HUGE secret of is his methods for achieving that Imperial Presidency. Part of his belief is that the president does not have to obey the constitution if he doesn't want to. This is another documented fact about Cheney. That is a direct violation of his oath of office. He should be impeached, tried, likely-convicted, then thrown out of his Texan-Wyomingian-Marylandish ass. (Wherever the hell he calls home. Maybe I should have said Hades.)

Once he's gone, the Democrats should take a page out of "The West Wing" and hand President Bush a list of potential Vice Presidents whom they would approve. (The Congress must confirm the Vice Presidential nominee.) The list should not include Nancy Pelosi, or any Democrats deemed "too liberal", although they could suggest some "conservative-leaning" Democrats, but all Republican choices should be moderates whom the country would accept as president should the need arise within the next fifteen months. Confirm that nominee to be Vice President, and the day after the oath of office is taken (by him or her), they should immediately move to impeach President Bush for (well, you pick the charge, there have been so many.) Try him, convict him (you'd have to be insane not to think he has violated his own oath of office just through his signing statements stating that he would refuse to obey the law he just signed if he wanted to), remove him from office, and welcome a president the country could stand behind.

That way, Speaker Nancy Pelosi avoids looking like she favored impeachment of them both to gain the presidency through succession. I know. It's crazy.

But Congressman Hall, with all due respect, I am sorry, but I cannot support a candidate for Congress who does not believe in the oath of office every public servant in Washington is required to take, including you, sir. By not supporting the impeachment of either President Bush or Vice President Cheney, two men who have frequently subverted the constitution in an effort to have their own way despite the will of Congress, one of whom has accelerated a thirty-year personal vendetta to restore power to the White House, and one of whom once told an aide to "stop throwing the Constitution in [his] face." (You remember, that document he swore an oath to preserve, protect and defend?) He then continued, "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!" Are you are going to tell me, Mr. Hall, that these two men should not be removed from office through impeachment immediately, if not sooner? Do you honestly believe that if they remain in office, that on January 20, 2009, we won't already be in a hot war with Iran (and possibly Russia)? Do you think any president should be trusted with the kind of power these two men have amassed? I believe that most of your constituents would say, "No." It's up to you, Congressman John Hall. Remember your own oath of office and preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

How Much Is a Trillion?

2007-10-14T12:37:00.000-04:00

"It'd be a trillion-dollar war if it stopped today."
- Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, Oct 14, 2007, "This Week with George Stephanopoulos"

So how much is a Trillion? Well, starting out smaller, 1,000 Thousands equals 1 Million (1,000,000); 1,000 Millions equals 1 Billion (1,000,000,000); and 1,000 Billions equals 1 Trillion (1,000,000,000,000). A Trillion can also be thought of as a Million Millions, but let's not go terribly crazy. So how can you relate to such a mind-numbing number like one Trillion?

Let's start with money. Let's imagine that you have a fantastic job that pays you one dollar for every second you work. (As you will see, there are people who get paid more than that.) There are 60 seconds in a minute and 60 minutes in an hour. If you were only getting paid for as 40-hour work week for all 52 weeks of the year, you would still be getting paid $7,488,000 in a year. And if you were getting your $1/sec rate for every second of the year, you would take in $31,536,000 for the entire year. At that rate, to earn a trillion dollars, you would have to work more than 31,709 years! And even if they magnanimously paid you $1,000/sec, it would still take you more than 31 years to earn that first $1 Trillion. They say the war in Iraq is costing taxpayers about $2 Billion dollars per week. There are 3,600 seconds in an hour, 24 hours in a day, and 7 days in a week for a total of 604,800 seconds per week. At $2 Billion per week, the Iraq War costs us over $3,000 every second! Can I borrow a couple of bucks for the rent this month?

Suppose you are a baseball fan. How can you relate to this? Let's start with A-Rod, Alex Rodriguez, third baseman (currently) for the New York Yankees. (Enjoy your winter, boys! Ha-ha.) A-Rod made big news when he signed a contract estimated to be worth about $250 Million. He's hoping to get another one just like it on a team from which he'll retire several years down the road. There are 30 teams in the Major Leagues and at the end of the season, they are each allowed to carry 40 players on their rosters. So that's 1,200 players in the majors at the end of the season. (Forget about the Disabled List and the openings they leave. Go with this, because it will amaze you.) If they gave every player on the 40-man roster of every one of the 30 teams in the Major Leagues a contract like A-Rods, they still wouldn't add up to $1 Trillion. In fact, it wouldn't even add up to a third of a trillion dollars. Put another way, the War in Iraq will end up costing us more than three times what it would cost to give every player on the 40-man roster of every team in the Major Leagues a contract like A-Rod's. Yet they still raise ticket prices every year.

Finally, a look outward. Light travels at about 186,282 miles per second. A "light-year" is the distance that light travels in the course of a year. (It is actually a unit of distance, not of time.) At 31,536,000 seconds in a year (remember that fantastic salary you had two paragraphs back?), light travels about 5,874,589,152,000 miles in one year. The nearest star in the galaxy to our own is about 4 light-years away. That means that they are nearly 25 Trillion miles away from us. Scientists have observed things in the Universe that they conclude are older than the Universe itself (meaning they pre-dated the Big Bang.) The Universe is also estimated to be anywhere between 10 and 20 Billion years old, so let's say that thing they saw was about 15 billion years old. What that means is that it took that light from that object 15 billion years to reach us. Which means it traveled about 90 Trillion miles to get here. And there's every reason to believe that there is more of the Universe beyond that. And that ours is the only collection of galaxies comprising our own Universe. Even further away from us are other collections of galaxies forming their own Universe. Imagine how much gas it would take to drive there. (Let's see, at 30 miles to the gallon, $3 per gallon,...)

Why I Won't Move To Russia

2007-10-13T14:42:00.000-04:00

Today we had the fifth of our monthly anti-war marches through the Village of Pawling, NY, not known for being a bastion of radicalism. Jane and I had marched in all of the previous ones except for last month's, when family matters prevented our participation. The turnout was small, as it seems to be dwindling each month. (This time it was actually was just Jane and me and four other people, as I feared it would be the first month.) It's understandable. We began during the summer when everyone had time and the kids were around to participate. Now, with school underway, the normal Saturday activities (like football games and such) give parents less time to devote to such causes, and I understand that. Also, some local politicians scheduled a "Meet the Candidates" event around the same time, and since most of our participants are politically active, they thought it important to go to that. (The main candidate, whom I will not name, thought it more important than our march and said so.) I have perceived that we've been getting a lot more horn honkers than before, even if our numbers were smaller than our first march. Near the beginning of the route, one guy in a pickup truck slowed down to read our signs. (Sorry, but I always to check to see if they have a gun rack in their truck. This one didn't, so I felt less nervous.) Then, just as he pulled away, he yelled, "Move to Russia!" (Especially glad there was no gun rack now.) I don't think I will, sir, and I'll happily tell you why.

I like what I have here just fine, thank you. And I'm not talking about the material things like the computer I'm typing this on, the furniture around me allowing me to do it in comfort, or the house in which I sit safely protected from the elements while I do it. I'm talking about the environment in which I can do it freely. And I'm not talking about the size of the room in which I'm sitting, the comfortable breezy day outside beckoning me to help my wife with her garden (which I'll do later), or the clean air I can breathe outside thanks to liberals who cared about protecting the biosphere we need to survive against the capitalistic conservatives hell-bent on its long-term exploitation and destruction for the sake of short-term profits. I'm talking about the freedom I have to do it.

It's something I doubt I could ever have in Russia, even if I did sell my soul to work for the Putin government. No, sir. Here in the United States, I have the freedom to do exactly what I was doing this morning: exercising my constitutional rights. A protest march in America is a beautiful thing, regardless of the number of participants. It's a statement. And not just about ending the illegal occupation and continued warfare in Iraq that has already claimed tens of thousands of lives, the all-out attack on our civil liberties planned in secret prior to 9/11 and aimed at silencing those who would dissent, or the impeachment of a president and vice president who flagrantly and proudly disrespect the very document each of them took an oath to "preserve, protect, and defend" against "all enemies". It's a statement about what makes this country of ours great, that every citizen has the right, free of government interference, to say what you want to about the war in Iraq, the erosion of our privacy rights, and the need to remove from office two men who clearly never intended to honor the oaths they took; to peaceably assemble with other like-minded individuals in groups large or small to demonstrate; and to tell the government what we think they are doing wrong and that we demand that they stop doing it. But it is also about so much more than that.

All of us matter. And I don't mean just the ones who fearlessly stand up to tell the public that a serious injustice is being carried out, the ones who forcefully persuade the government to change policy, or the ones who ferociously defend our very right to do all of that. I mean all us. Everyone on the planet. We are all human beings, and until we learn to see each other first as fellow human beings and not as someone segregated into a group we choose not to like, we will continue to make the mistake of sending human beings to fight and die with other human beings for ideals far less important than the ones that can give us hope for a better future for everyone. War is never justifiable. Greed and selfishness are often the root causes of war. The planet belongs to everyone, not just to those who stand atop it with a weapon in hand to stop others from sharing it. We need each other. The human race cannot survive in the long run if we keep dividing ourselves up. The day will come when a planetary-wide crisis will necessitate we put aside our differences and cooperate with one another to arrive at a solution. Should we prevail and overcome this crisis, will we have the wisdom to recognize that what we once fought each other to the death over before pales in significance to the importance of coming together for our common survival? I like to think we can. I'd like to think that you think we can, too. It's the first step toward world peace. And what kind of human being could be against that?

Those Damn Mets

2007-10-06T20:17:00.000-04:00

It's almost been a week since The Collapse. The New York Mets had a seven-game lead with seventeen games left to play, and they couldn't do it. I'm stunned. So stunned that it took me a week to be willing to sit down and think about it. And I still don't want to. How could they do this to us again?

I know what some of you want to say to me. "It's just a game, Wayne. There are more important things in life right now. You should focus your energies on fighting to end the war in Iraq, on restoring habeas corpus, on holding the Bush administration accountable for their numerous illegal activities, on Universal health care for all Americans, on better enforcement of even stronger environmental regulations that don't rely on corporations "voluntarily" meeting already-low standards, on higher education standards so that more Dallas, TX, high school students could identify the country immediately to the south of the United States and more students could tell you that we were allies with the Soviet Union against Germany in WWII (not allies with Germany against the Soviet Union as some believe), and on trying to get more people to stop driving 45 MPH in a 55-MPH Zone." But I would disagree. It is most definitely not just a game. It's Baseball, Mets style!

I have been a fan of the New York Mets my entire life, except for the first two when the franchise didn't exist. Oh, I confess, I had my years of being happy to cheer for the New York Yankees when they were winning in the late '70s, but those were years when the Mets' season was over in July. You gotta understand. The Mets were the team that, prior to the Age of Free Agency (when the top players could be bought on the open market), the Mets had the fastest rise from Team Inception (1962) to World Championship (1969) of any major professional sports team (not counting, I guess, the first teams in the league.) The 1969 team had a bunch of kids on it, with a few veterans, and they managed to author one of the most incredible comebacks in baseball history. In last place in their division at the end of August, they went on an incredible winning streak and finished in first place. (No Wild Card teams in baseball then.) They swept the best-of-five National League Championship Series against, ironically, the Atlanta Braves, and went on to win the World Series against the Baltimore Orioles (with legendary pitchers like Jim Palmer, Mike Cuellar, Dave McNally and others). In another ironic twist, the last out was made by future Mets manager Davy Johnson. What a year. What a season. What a team. They truly were the Amazing Mets.

To give him a chance to end his career in New York, Willie Mays was traded from the San Francisco Giants (once one of two National League teams based in New York) to the Mets in 1973. Again, from last place in August they went on to the World Series, where they stopped by the then-powerful Oakland A's. To their credit, the Mets took the A's the distance, but fell short. It would have been nice for Willie Mays to end his career on a championship team, but somehow in America, second place just doesn't cut it for us. They won the National League Championship and the right to fly the pennant forever afterwards, but it just didn't mean as much. We were so close.

The Mets would not reach the post season again for another thirteen years. Thirteen very long years. Painful years to be a Mets fan. There was some glimmer of hope in the early '80s when the Mets began putting together a nice, strong, young pitching staff that brought through the magical year of 1986. It was not only a joy to be a Mets fan, it was something to be proud of. They were phenomenal that year. I'll never forget a comic strip called "Tank McNamara" that had the newscaster saying that NASA scientists had announced that they had just spotted the Mets out in first place. No lead against them was safe that year, for they were always a threat with the late inning long ball. And, oh, those late innning comebacks. The were the Comeback Kids, the Cardiac Kids, the Amazing Mets all over again. And that postseason series against the Houston Astros.

I was in the Air Force then, stationed in a country that, technically, no longer exists. It was called West Germany (perhaps you've heard of it.) The games were carried live on Armed Forces Network TV, so that meant they started at 2 AM our time. So after I got off duty at 4:30 PM (1630 HRS) I would grab something to eat at the mess hall and go to sleep, wake up around 1:30 AM, take a shower, put on my uniform and go down to the Day Room to watch the game with a freckled-faced kid from Brooklyn. It was a roller coaster of emotion to watch those games, and when they took Game 6 to 16 innings, just to avoid facing Mike Scott in Game 7, it was like
it was meant to be. They couldn't have the fantastic season that they had only to have it end in the playoffs, without even reaching the World Series. But they did, and what a series it was. Now understand something. As Mets fans, we were also Yankees Haters. So, naturally, we were happy for the Boston Red Sox that they were able to make it to the Fall Classic over their hated rivals. And if the Mets weren't in the Series, we'd probably have been rooting for the Sox to break The Curse.

And they almost did. Game 6 of the 1986 World Series is consodered one of the greatest Wotrld Series games in baseball history. Down three games to two, the Mets were one strike away from handing the Red Sox their first World Series win in some eighty-odd years. Mookie Wilson kept fouling off pitches to keep the game going. The Sox were up by one when suddenly, Mookie jumps up and put of the way of a wild pitch to allow the tying run to score from third and the winning run to advance to scoring position. And then the squibbler right down the first base line. Our hearts sank. The season was about to end for the Mets. Our best offensive season in history about to come to a heart-rending end. But wait! Bill Buckner, put in to place first so he could end his career on the field when his team won the World Series, wasn't able to bend his old knees enough to field the ball, and it kept going down the line. Ray Knight came home with the winning run and the Mets lived to play another day. We have a picture of that moment autographed by Mookie Wilson and Bill Buckner. Of course, the Mets went on to win Game 7 and the Championship.

It's the memories of those two championship seasons that keep Mets fans hopeful every year. And this year started out with such promise. From May on, they held on to first place. When their play started to crumble in September, I began to brace myself. We had tasted the bitterness of disappointment before, and some of us had learned our lesson. You can't be too hopeful, or the fall is that much greater. By the time they reached a 7-game lead with 17 to play, I still had my doubts. And when they started losing game after game, blowing huge leads, leaving men on base or hitting into inning-ending double plays, I knew the handwriting was on the wall. They were playing like they had booked plans for this very week and didn't want to lose the deposit. They played like they were too afraid to win. But worst of all for us, they played like their fans didn't matter. They failed us. Again.

But we, after all, Mets fans. We've been through this before and came back the next year, and I'm sure we'll do so again next spring. They do have a lot of exciting young talent on the team, and with the right combination of starting pitching and effective bullpen relief, they stand a strong chance of giving the rest of the league a run for their money. And we Mets fans will be there right beside them, believing in them, encouraging them, and secretly hoping they don't let us down again. We were so close this time. This can't be the closest we get for a long time to come. We know we'll get there. Because we're Mets fans, and we still believe.

Stopping Telephone Solicitors

2007-09-29T10:02:00.000-04:00

About five and a half years ago, Steven Rubenstein wrote in the San Francisco Chronicle that he had a sure fire way to stop telephone solicitors, and it takes three little words. "Hold on, please." When you find yourself bothered by one of these annoying callers (despite being on the National No Call Registry), just ask them to hold on for a few moments and then set the phone down and walk away. The reason it works is because when you hang up immediately, they can move on to the next call on their list. This is how they can reach hundreds of homes instead of just a few dozen. But if everybody told them to hold on, it would waste several minutes and seriously reduce the number of other people they could bother.

Visit the National No Call Registry and sign up to reduce the number of telephone solicitations you receive. Already did it before? Well, you might have to do it again. Your name only stays on the list for five years. Then you have to register again.

Death to Capital Punishment?

2007-09-29T09:16:00.000-04:00

The Supreme Court has taken the surprising step of agreeing to determine if lethal injection, the most common method of execution used in the United States today, violates the Eight Amendment ban on Cruel and Unusual Punishment. (The question is about the chemical formula used for the injections.) They agreed to stay the execution of a Texas inmate, Carlton Turner, while they take up the case in their next term which starts Monday, Oct 1. But you know Texas, Death Penalty Capital of the USA. They have decided that they may not wait for the Supreme Court to rule on this particular case while they proceed with other executions, including one scheduled for next week. (Last week, Alabama stayed an execution for 45 days while they try to come up with a new lethal injection formula. I have to say, that's just the kind of "Can Do Spirit" that made America great.) But what impact will this have on the rest of the nation's scheduled executions?

At most, it's likely only to delay the inevitable for death row inmates. The Court is not expected to rule that the death penalty is unconstitutional, but rather that the method used may be cruel and unusual. There was some confusion when the Court failed to stop another "Texa-cution" just days before they issued this stay. Their denial of the appeal was based on technical grounds. Owing to a computer crash, the inmate's appeal failed to reach the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in time by twenty minutes. The Texas court refused to stay open the extra few minutes, and Michael Richard was put to death anyway. (Maybe his lawyers made the mistake of appealing to the court's humanity.) Ohio State University Professor Douglas A. Berman says in his blog that there may be few, if any, executions over the next 9-18 months while the Court deliberates. Lower courts may start staying executions while they wait for the Court's decision on how it would impact them.

For the record, I oppose the use of capital punishment in all cases (even the "worst of the worst"), because of the danger of executing an innocent person and because I do not believe it to be an effective deterrent to crime. Texas is one of those states that really does carry out its executions, rather than let death row inmates die in prison from other causes. (Natural causes, inmate murder, etc.) And I think it can be argued that this is pretty well known in Texas. Yet this does not seem to stop them from killing each other in Texas.

Joke Time: Future Handicapping

2007-09-27T22:33:00.000-04:00

George W. was out jogging one morning along the parkway when he tripped, fell over the bridge railing and landed in the creek below.

Before the Secret Service guys could get to him, three kids, who were fishing, pulled him out of the water. He was so grateful he offered the kids whatever they wanted.

The first kid said, "I want to go to Disneyland."

George said, "No problem. I'll take you there on Air Force One".

The second kid said, "I want a new pair of Nike Air Jordan's."

George said, "I'll get them for you and even have Michael sign them!"

The third kid said, "I want a motorized wheelchair with a built-in TV and stereo headset!!"

Bush is a little perplexed by this and says, "But you don't look like you are handicapped."

The kid says, "I will be after my dad finds out I saved your ass from drowning!"

Bill Displays His Political Ignorance

2007-09-22T15:48:00.000-04:00

In a recent column by Bill O'Reilly, the Master of Misspeak demonstrates, once again, why the simple-minded should not be given a public forum as vast as the one he's been given to disseminate what passes for "ideas" in his head. Bill is worried that Sen Hillary Clinton will be elected president in 2008. And one reason that he's worried reveals his ignorance of the political process:

Certainly, even far-left Democrats, who generally dislike Mrs. Clinton, would pull the lever in her direction the next time around. To elect another Republican would be unthinkable.

Republicans, however, are not so united. Many on the right are caught up in selective issues like abortion and gay marriage. If a candidate doesn't see things their way, they won't support that candidate, even if it's Hillary staring at them from across the divide.

You see, Bill believes that every voter in this country thinks that he or she has a choice on Election Day between two, and only two, choices for president - the Democratic Party candidate or the Republican Party candidate. He cannot imagine that someone might decide, for reasons forever lost on Bill, to cast his vote for a third party candidate. He is one of the people dangerous to democracy - the kind who doesn't want you to know that you can vote for whomever you wish. They want you to think that the two major political parties are all you need to solve our nation's problems. And they want you to think that way because the two major political parties have figured out how to control this country, and they don't want to give that up. They like things the way they are. If people from other parties started getting elected to Congress, they mioght not end up with a clear majority, and thus lose control. And they can't have that now, can they?

But that is not the only example in just this column of Bill's split with the reality-based community. He also lives in a world where Democrats are openly rooting for our troops to "lose" in Iraq. (Someone is going to have to explain to what what "winning" in Iraq is supposed to look like before I can understand what "losing" is, but that's another subject.) He goes on to speculate, possbily under the influence of mind-altering substances:

There are two wild cards right now. If Iraq improves, the Democrats lose momentum on their big issue. So some Democrats are actually rooting against their own country in Iraq. That is dangerous territory, as the MoveOn.org blunder over Gen. Petraeus demonstrated.

Also, the far left is totally out of control in this country, and a smart Republican candidate will tie those loons around the necks of Hillary or Barack Obama.
Few Americans want to see Rosie O'Donnell and George Soros spending the night in the Lincoln bedroom. Separately, of course.

What the fuck? What evidence does he have to support any of those claims? Can he name a single Democrat who is "actually rooting against their own country in Iraq"? Just one. That's all I want to hear. I hear Republicans talking all the time about how a terrorist attack between now and the election would help them more than it would the Democrats. They somehow think that Americans will turn to the Republicans because "they could protect us better." Now tell me, if we're attacked, doesn't it just prove that the Republicans failed to protect us? Why would Americans think they could do it better than the Democrats? That is moronic thinking. Do they think people are going to come through an attack and say, "Well, thank God the Democrats weren't supposed to be protecting us." Yeah, good thing, or else they might have been successful, like they were on 9/11.

And where is he evidence that "the far left is totally out of control in this country"? To whom is he referring here, MoveOn.org again? Media Matters? Daily kos? Huffington Post? Keith Olbermann? C'mon, Bill, tell us who you mean by "the far left"? Is Cindy Sheehan running around pretending she scored the winning goal in the Olympics? Is Michael Moore inviting Fidel Castro to his backyard barbecues in Flint, MI, again? Care to back up that outlandish statement with something along the lines of facts?

The Rosie O'Donnell/George Soros smear is not even worthy of acknowledgement, other than to point out that he says a lot of such things unworthy of acknowledgement. But it's hard to say that without citing an example or two. Bill loves to throw out inflammatory comments borne of a fertile (and, as we know, salacious) imagination just to "prove a point", although what that point could possibly be is often lost on people with IQs in the three-digit range. I would prefer to believe that most of this audience tunes in to hear what ridiculous things he says, not because they agree with him. If only he would introduce facts to his statements. Who knows, they might even get to be friends.

What Do the Candidates Know About ETs?

2007-09-22T14:29:00.000-04:00

A group called the Paradigm Research Group has announced that it is demanding that presidential candidates support, what they call, a "truth amnesty" in order to free people who wish to speak from the "government-imposed truth embargo on the facts confirming an extraterrestrial presence." Dana Milbank has more. The group says that the government has its hands on energy technology that would revolutionize our way of life and make great strides in protecting the biosphere. They believe that there are people in government who would like to speak out about what they know of the existence of extraterrestrials, but are prevented from doing so under threat of imprisonment.

Opponents of this measure, who don't immediately criticize it as being just plain out-and-out silly, may believe that this represents an attempt to pander to the illegal alien vote, and that it should be denounced. Extraterrestrials have no constitutional rights, on that I think everyone can agree. But the constitution does not grant the government the authority to keep the existence of extraterrestrial life a secret from the public, regardless of their interpretation. If they exist, and if they are hostile, and the government wishes to keep the details of its military movements against them a secret, then that would apply just as it does in any other conflict. But at least in every other conflict, we have acknowledged the existence of the enemy.

Regardless of the exact number, there are millions of people who do believe that intelligent life exists on other planets, and a good number of them believe that we have been visited by some of them. One of my favorite TV shows is "Stargate SG-1". It's intelligent, at times very funny (once you get to know the characters), and its plotline derives from a very imaginative interpretation of agent Egyptian and Norse Mythology. SG-1 is the designation of the US Air Force team that conducts off-world expeditions and missions. Like just about every other vet, I can tell when a show or movie was done with the cooperation of the USAF. One clue is the uniforms. There are specific differences that one who has lived among them can easily spot (so we know when we're confronting the real thing). If the USAF (or any DoD entity) does not like the way it is portrayed, it will not allow them to use authentic-looking uniforms and military equipment, including air and naval craft. But if it supports them entirely, they have anything they want (except actually classified equipent). Hell, they even had the Air Force Chief of Staff appear in an episode as himself! And one hilarious episode, called "Wormhole X-treme!", was about a ficticious TV show whose plot clearly matched that of the supposedly highly top secret Stargate Command. The question was raised as to why the Air Force would let them take it that far, given that what it portrays is real. The answer was "plausible deniability". If rumors ever leaked about the program, they could point to that television show and say people got it from that.

So I asked myself, "Is that why they have cooperated as fully as they have with the making of "Stargate SG-1" and its spinoff, "Stargate Atlantis"? Because they really are real?" Although the USAF is always portrayed in generally the most positive of lights, why would they dedicate themselves so much to such accurate detail of even the most minor of things? Why go to such great lengths for a show about something that doesn't exist? What is to be gained from it? Sure it could theoretically be serving as a recruitment tool, but for who? Nerds like me who like sci-fi? Other TV shows have garnered DoD "support" because they dealt with real subjects or organizations (such as the JAG, or commando units). But it makes sense to try to appeal to youngsters interested in those things. They could actually get to do them in the military. But off-world missions to engage extraterrestrial enemies? Would it make sense that the United States Air Force would spend the time and money it has to give such authenticity to a TV program from which it could otherwise gain nothing? Just saying is all.

I Blame Checkers

2007-09-15T14:07:00.001-04:00

George W. Bush would not be president if it weren't for Dick Cheney. Cheney would not be co-president if it weren't for Richard Nixon, and his attempt to enact the Unitary Executive Theory, which Cheney loves and fully supports. Nixon would not have been president if it weren't for his "Law & Order" campaign, made popular because of the civil turmoil caused by a war in which our involvement was escalated by John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson. Kennedy and Johnson would not have made it to the White House if they hadn;t defeated then-Vice President Richard Nixon. Nixon would not have been vice president if it hadn't been for a speech he gave, on Sept 23, 1952, about 55 years ago, in which he uttered the famous words, "And our little girl Tricia, the six year old, named it 'Checkers.' And you know, the kids, like all kids, love the dog, and I just want to say this, right now, that regardless of what they say about it, we're gonna keep it." And now, George W. Bush is president. I blame Checkers.

In 1952, charges of corruption were being levied against Nixon. The Republican Party was in a pickle. Do they dump Nixon, or try to beat Adlai Stevenson with him? Eisenhower told Nixon that if he couldn't prove he was "clean as a hound's tooth", he was off the ticket. Nixon decided to take his case to the people. He arranged air time following the immensely popular Milton Berle Show. He hadn't even told his staff whether he was going to defend himself or resign from the ticket. He surprised everyone by giving a detailed financial account of himself, including how much his house cost. And then he brought up the dog.

One other thing I probably should tell you, because if I don't they'll probably be saying this about me, too. We did get something, a gift, after the election. A man down in Texas heard Pat on the radio mention the fact that our two youngsters would like to have a dog. And believe it or not, the day before we left on this campaign trip we got a message from Union Station in Baltimore, saying they had a package for us. We went down to get it. You know what it was? It was a little cocker spaniel dog in a crate that he'd sent all the way from Texas, black and white, spotted. And our little girl Tricia, the six year old, named it "Checkers." And you know, the kids, like all kids, love the dog, and I just want to say this, right now, that regardless of what they say about it, we're gonna keep it.

Nixon ended his speech with a direct appeal to the voters:

And now, finally, I know that you wonder whether or not I am going to stay on the Republican ticket or resign. Let me say this: I don't believe that I ought to quit, because I am not a quitter. And, incidentally, Pat's not a quitter. After all, her name was Patricia Ryan and she was born on St. Patrick's day, and you know the Irish never quit.
But the decision, my friends, is not mine. I would do nothing that would harm the possibilities of Dwight Eisenhower to become President of the United States. And for that reason I am submitting to the Republican National Committee tonight through this television broadcast the decision which it is theirs to make. Let them decide whether my position on the ticket will help or hurt. And I am going to ask you to help them decide. Wire and write the Republican National Committee whether you think I should stay on or whether I should get off. And whatever their decision is, I will abide by it.

After the speech, Nixon thought he had totally blown it and would soon be off the ticket. But when he got back to the hotel, the phones were going crazy with pro-Nixon calls. He had saved his candidacy, and went on to become vice president. Then he lost to Kennedy and Johnson. Then he got elected in 1968 and influenced Dick Cheney. Then Cheney convinced Bush to select him as his running mate after Bush asked Cheney to help him find one. Then Cheney helped George W. Bush get into the White House, where even today, he is widely seen as being the President of the United States. I blame Checkers.

You can see the entire text of the speech that Nixon gave (also known as the "Cloth Coat Speech", because of a reference to the "respectable cloth coat" his wife, Pat, wore, instead of a mink coat), including the video of it, here.

No Jail For Foley

2007-09-15T04:13:00.000-04:00

Looks like Mark Foley will get away with it, from a legal standpoint. Florida has a three-year statute of limitations, and since the alleged incident with the minor took place in 2003, and the investigation didn't start until 2006, he likely won't be prosecuted. And guess who's being blamed? The media, of course, for sitting on the story too long, despite the fact that several Republican Congressman knew (or suspected) about Foley even before ABC News got their hands on the e-mails. Raw Story has more.

Congratulations David Sirota

2007-09-15T00:17:00.000-04:00

David Sirota has just has his first blog as a member of Creators Syndicate. Long time posters at ThinkProgress remember David from the early days at The Center for American Progress. He has been a very important voice in the Progressive movement. Call or write your local paper and insist that they carry David's column.

Tell Me Again Why We Are About To Attack Iran?

2007-09-13T14:20:00.000-04:00

Here's a story we should be hearing about in the Corporate-Controlled Media, but aren't:

The mainstream media has failed to report the agreement reached between the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Iranian government in regards to the Iranian nuclear energy program. An understanding has been reached between the two. The IAEA has given Iran's nuclear program a clean bill of health.

Why is the U.S. media not reporting on this matter? Why do the U.S. and its Western allies continue to threaten Iran with punitive bombings for its alleged non-compliance, when everything indicates that Iran has a bona fide nuclear energy program and does not have the capabilities of developing nuclear weapons

You can read more here, including a link to the full report.

The Good Old Days

2007-09-13T00:35:00.000-04:00

Have you ever wondered where the word "Testify" comes from? You might be surprised, or terrified. In Ancient Rome, to "testify" meant that the man in the Roman court was swearing to a statement made, by swearing on his testicles. Imagine if every male from this administration, including Karen Hughes, or from the military chain of command, who has ever had to testify to Congress, had to do so under this definition, do you honestly think their "testimonies" would have been the same? I don't.

A Downright Moron

2007-09-13T00:05:00.000-04:00

“... all the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre—the man who can most adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum. The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”—H.L. Mencken, journalist and satirist (1880 - 1956) from the Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920

You tell me, America. Are we there yet? Because it sure looks to me like we are. When you fail to see the plain evidence that what you believe to be the case isn't really so, just because you are convinced that eventually, at some distant time down the future, at who knows what cost in blood and treasure, you might possibly be proved right, could it be because you are too stupid to see that you've been wrong all along? I ask you, America, "Is the White House adorned by a downright moron?”

You Inhuman Bastard

2007-09-12T22:55:00.000-04:00

Bill O'Reilly has certainly been known to say some stupid and even false things, and sometimes at the same time. Remember how he twice claimed that at Malmedy in WWII, it was Americans soldiers who gunned down unarmed Nazi SS officers. It was, of course, the other way around. But what Bill O'Reilly said in response to the testimony of General Petraeus was inhuman. Horribly, despicably, vilely inhuman.

"My feeling is that we should allow General Petraeus the resources he needs within a year's time. After that, the Iraqi army must step up and provide their own security with a few American battalions in support. For the future of both the USA and Iraq, that is probably the best course of action in a truly painful situation."

Okay, Bill, I have only one request of you. I want you to go to Iraq, anywhere you think you need to, and walk up and put your hand on the shoulder of the first one of those soldiers that you thought should die before this is over, and tell him to his face that you okayed his death. You inhuman bastard.

They Go To 11

2007-09-12T22:52:00.000-04:00

Just as Billy Wagner fielded a ground ball to first and swung around both ways before tagging the runner to save a 4-3 New York Mets win over the third place (hee-hee) Atlanta Braves, the final score in Philadelphia was posted as they lost 12-0 to the Colorado Rockies to bring the Mets' Magic Number down by two in one day. They go to 11.

Sunny Day

2007-09-10T19:33:00.001-04:00

I live in Pawling, NY, a small town about an hour and a half north of New York City. I work in Brewster, NY, the town I grew up in, and that's only about an hour away from The City. I have been to The City many times in my life, but one of the saddest had to be at the second game the Mets played after Sept 11, 2001. I still remember standing at the railing, looking south toward Manhattan and seeing the smoke still rising from what would come to be known as Ground Zero. I will never forget what happened there. I only wish I knew the truth.

I was at work on September 11, 2001, when people started saying they heard on the radio that a plane hit one of the towers of the World Trade Center. Not a small, private plane or a military aircraft, but a big, huge jetliner. I was stunned. I didn’t think it possible. I mean, those things have sophisticated guidance systems in them, and they could practically fly themselves. (I have since learned there is no “practically” about it, they can fly themselves.) So how could they miss what was literally one of the tallest buildings in the country? It didn’t make any sense but, I figured, tragic as they are, accidents do happen.

But when a second plane hit the other tower, it was instantly obvious that it was no accident. Now we were desperate for information. We tried to turn on the TV at the office to see what (if anything) was on the news, but that summer, a roofing crew had re-tarred the roof of our office, and in the process they knocked the satellite dish out of alignment. We had to wait for the owner (the only one with the technical know-how to fix it) to come in, and he had just happened to have decided to come in late that day. He did eventually arrive and, having not heard about the plane crashes, agreed that we ought to get the TV going, so he set about fixing it.

In the meantime, the news reports kept coming both from the radio playing in the warehouse, and from the brother of one of our co-workers. The Pentagon had been hit. The Pentagon? You mean, one of the most heavily fortified and defended buildings in the entire country was also hit by a plane? Don’t they have a whole bunch of anti-aircraft guns on their roof for just such an emergency? Isn’t it a standing order that if a plane is about to crash into it, that it must be shot down? (That may sound horrible, but if the plane is going to be flown into a building, the people in it are going to die anyway; shooting the plane down may save the lives of the people in the intended target.) This was becoming more and more surreal as the day wore on. I mean, planes manage to crash into both World Trade Center towers, and now the Pentagon was hit, too? I just kept asking myself, “How the fuck was this possible?”

Before our boss was done fixing the satellite dish, our co-worker (whose brother was watching it on TV), came in and said that one of the towers had fallen down. We were stunned. My first thought was that it had toppled over and came crashing down on the other buildings of Lower Manhattan. I asked him if this is what happened, and he said, “No, it just came straight down into one big pile.” I said, “You mean right down on its own footprint?” And he said, “Yeah.” Well that didn’t sound right, either. I didn’t know it then, but that little detail would keep gnawing at me. “Was anybody still in it at the time?” “Yeah, I’m sure.”

My father has been a volunteer firefighter in Brewster, NY, for more than fifty years. I'm very proud of him, and so there’s a special place in my heart for those who risk their lives to save others. I wept inside at the thought that who knows how many people were killed in that collapse not because they worked there and couldn’t get out in time, but because they went into the building to save lives. I was reminded of those sick people who plant two bombs at a location, with the second one timed to go off after first responders and rescuers had a chance to arrive to help the survivors of the first bomb. Then word came that the second tower collapsed. I died inside. All I could think about at that moment were the firefighters who were inside that building for the sole purpose of trying to save lives. I couldn’t believe what was happening. This kind of shit just isn’t supposed to happen! Who did this? What did they want from us? Why were they doing it? How many more would die that day? And would it continue tomorrow? It started out as a beautiful sunny day, and it turned into one of the blackest days of our nation’s history. Little did I realize then how black it truly was.

I did not know anyone personally who was killed or injured. I have a friend who worked in Manhattan, and he sent an e-mail a couple of weeks later to all of his friends to let them know he was okay. He had incredible stories about the generosity of New Yorkers that I’m sure some of you will still not believe. He said that people started walking north, away from the towers to get away. Everywhere, cars, even taxis, were stopping and picking up as many people as they could carry to get them away. Strangers helped other strangers, and nobody was thinking about anything other than getting out of there alive. Other than the two horrendous acts of mass murder committed that morning, that day would be one of the most crime-free in New York’s history. One of my co-workers lost a cousin in one of the towers when it collapsed. She also lost a friend who worked in the Pentagon. And when her mother learned a day or two later about the cousin, she suffered a heart attack and died. To my knowledge, those were the only ones that died to which I had any kind of connection, and I never met any of them before.

Eventually the boss got the satellite dish fixed, and we watched in horror the endless replays of the planes colliding into the buildings and of the towers collapsing. It was nothing like I imagined. They shouldn’t have come straight down like that, not out of blind chance, and not both of them. By all right and reason, those buildings should have toppled to the side at least a little bit and come crashing down on the buildings next to them, at least. How could they possibly have just weakened at some point and come straight down, right onto their own footprints? Both of them? It was too coincidental, too strange to be true. Then I started hearing reporters on the scene use the exact words I was looking for: “It was like a controlled demolition.” And not just one of them, several of them said the same thing, almost verbatim. A “controlled demolition.” But that couldn’t possibly be true, could it? For that to be true, someone had to plan this well in advance. Could this have been deliberate?

Six years have passed since that terrible sunny day. And in that time, I have come to believe that our government, specifically the Bush administration, does not want the truth of what happened to come out. I wish I could believe that this is because they acted so incompetently and failed so miserably to protect us, that they just didn’t want to be reminded all the time. Remember, too, that this was early on in their first term. They were still busy trying to prove that they were vastly superior to the Clinton administration, that they could do everything better. So it wouldn’t have surprised me that they simply didn’t want people to have some kind of evidence that, despite what conservatives say about government, they still can’t effectively run one. Like I said, I wish I could believe that. But I don’t.

My suspicions began to ignite again when I started hearing that Bush didn’t want an independent investigation into what happened. Now what the fuck was going on? The worst attack on our nation’s soil since Pearl Harbor, and Bush didn’t want to investigate to find out what happened? If not for the families of the victims, there would never have been a 9/11 Commission Report. Not that this report explained what happened that day. About the only thing you could say for certain of the 9/11 Commission Report, is that it is not a report and review on what really happened that day. Not an accurate one, anyway. It couldn’t be. It had too many internal contradictions to be an accurate report. And it left too many questions unanswered, or poorly and inadequately answered, if at all.

Those of us who question the “official account” have been called all kinds of names by our government, including “Conspiracy Theorists”. That one I find particularly ironic because the official 9/11 Report is itself a “Conspiracy Theory.” It’s a theory that says 19 highjackers conspired to fly four planes into various targets. It’s just that this is the only “Conspiracy Theory” the government will allow to be said. They don’t want to hear anything else, for to ask questions and to doubt the official version of events is to “embolden the enemy”. That might be true if the official version of events was the truth. But it clearly is not.

Now why would I say that with such certitude? Before listing just some of the reasons why I doubt the official account, let me say that sharper-eyed observers than I have found hundreds of contradictions. Here are just a few. For one thing, several of the 19 highjackers turned up alive and well and complaining about why they were accused of being among the highjackers. That is a documented fact. It’s not just that a name matched, which would be understandable, but the pictures matched their faces. I bet you didn’t hear a lot about that in the Corporate-Controlled Media, or CCM (former known as the MSM (Mainstream Media) or the SCLM (So-Called Liberal Media), neither of which conveys the truth that a majority of the media is controlled by a small number of corporations). And there are other facts the CCM doesn’t seem to want you to know. (Contrast what you’ve heard about all of this with how much you’ve heard in the media about Britney Spears, Paris Hilton and Lindsey Lohan. I’m certain you’ve heard and know more about these three women than you have about the truth behind the 9/11 attacks.)

Around the same time that I heard about some of the highjackers being alive and well, I also heard an interesting fact. In the entire history of steel-framed constructed buildings, only three have been brought down by fire, and all three fell on the same day – Sept 11, 2001. There have been other steel-framed buildings that burned for far longer and yet showed no signs whatsoever of even coming close to collapsing. This made me start thinking again about the way those three buildings (WTC-1, WTC-2, and WTC-7) came down – as if they were brought down by a controlled demolition. Maybe you heard some of the news anchors reporting live describe it that way. You probably never heard about the many eye-, ear-, and nose-witness accounts who said they saw suspicious activity in the buildings in the days and weeks leading up to 9/11, or heard a rapid series of explosions (pow-pow-pow-pow) right before the buildings came down, or smelled cordite (a material used in explosives, primarily, and not something you would smell in any old fire.)

I wish I could say I was making this up. I wish I could say that this is only something I’ve heard about, and not actually seen, but I've seen the videos of people being interviewed that very day! I’ve heard them describe, in their own words, and in words that almost matched exactly what other witnesses have said. One site that might tell you more is that of an eyewitness to that day’s events. His name is William Rodriguez, and his website is william911. He worked in the towers and he was responsible for saving hundreds of lives that day for a simple reason. He had the key. The Master Key. The key that opened the doors in the stairwells of the North Tower, which were locked (for reasons not clear to me.) Read his story. He, too, heard explosions below him in the basements before the planes hit. He has also been determined to be the last person to get out of the North Tower alive, running out as it collapsed and being saved by ducking under a fire truck. His story of hope and courage is remarkable.

I could go on and on about the discrepancies between the official report and the actual, verifiable facts, but that wouldn’t do any good. I encourage each and every one of you to begin your own investigations. Since you’re reading this, you have access to the internet. Start with 911Truth, and begin looking at what they have to say. These are not crazy people who dream up wild possibilities of what might have happened. These are people, many of them relatives of the victims, many scientists, who question the official report. They want to know what really happened that day. They want to know why the president and vice president have refused to testify separately and under oath, about what they knew of that day and when did they know it. They want the truth because we obviously have not been told the truth, and we have a right to it.

As you investigate, you will learn other things you probably haven’t heard before. Did you know that the coroner who was at the scene in Shanksville, PA, where flight 93 is said to have gone down, said that after about twenty minutes, he "ceased being the coroner"? There were no bodies in the wreckage. He said that it looked more like someone dug a hole in the ground and just threw a bunch of metal and airplane parts in it.

Then there’s the Pentagon. This one is really strange. If you look carefully at pictures of where the Pentagon was hit, you will see a big hole (as you would expect). What you don’t see, and what you would also expect, is any evidence of a plane! The hole itself is barely big enough for the fuselage to fit through, yet there is no evidence that the areas to the side of the hole were struck by the wings of the aircraft, nor can you see any sign of the huge, multi-ton engines attached to them. If they didn’t go inside the building, they should be on the lawn, but you cannot see any of them in any of the photographs. The official explanation is that the plane “vaporized” in the explosion. This, my friends, is simply an insult to your intelligence. Because not only do they say that the plane vaporized, they say that they were able to recover the bodies of the passengers and identify them. How could that be? How could something vaporize a metal aircraft like that and leave human bodies intact? Why were the tapes from every security camera in the vicinity (including the VA Highway Dept’s and those of local hotels looking in that direction) confiscated by the FBI within minutes of the impact? Why have they never been released to the public? If a plane really did hit the Pentagon, then why don’t they let us see the evidence? You can see the basis for these questions at Pentagon Strike.

Friends, your government has lied to you about the events of Sept 11, 2001. That much is obvious. I urge each and every one of out there to start asking your own questions about the discrepancies. If you’re an American, contact your Senators and Representatives and demand that they re-open the investigation. And this time, NOBODY should be permitted to testify without being under oath, and NOBODY should be allowed to not testify if asked. This is especially true of the president and vice president. They know more than they are saying, and not simply because “it’s classified.” (It is illegal to classify something just to keep it out of the public domain. All classified material and documents must pertain to national security. The president’s reputation is NOT a matter of national security.) Many people who could have given testimony that contradicted the official report were not called to do so. And this time, let a reputable person lead the investigation and not a hand-picked crony of the president.

Remember the Fallen. Demand the Truth. Peace on Earth.

What Are We Waiting For?

2007-09-08T00:28:00.000-04:00

President George W. Bush has committed Treason by giving aid and comfort to the enemy during a time of war. He is giving your tax dollars to insurgents who once fought against, and likely killed, American forces. His act of Treason cannot be defended, nor the charge denied. We have what we need, so why isn't President Bush being impeached as we speak?

In what other way can he disrespect the very men and women whose deaths he has ordered? At one time we declared the people we are fighting alongside to be our enemy. But now we are not only giving them training to help them fight their enemy, al Qaida, we are also giving them money. Your money. To people who once put our troops under fire. People who once stood at the other end of our guns, are now standing behind us with theirs. How much longer can we allow President Bush to do this?

Anyone who has studied history knows that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" can never be a long term solution. Once your common enemy has been vanquished, the mutal goal has been attained. There is always the very real danger he will go back to being your enemy again. The fighting and dying will not cease. Why do we continue to utilize this oft-maligned, oft-failed policy?

Art III, Sec 3, Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Every citizen must call his or her Congressman and demand the immediate impeachment of George W. Bush, before another US Soldier dies and we pay off his killer.

Happy Labor Day

2007-09-03T00:37:00.001-04:00

This year will mark 125 years since the first Labor Day parade was held. In New York City, on September 5, 1882, 10,000 workers marched from City Hall to Union Station. It was no paid holiday, but they did it to honor their fellow workers and to air some grievances with employers. Though more states held these parades over the coming years, it wasn't until 1894 that Congress established Labor Day as a federal holiday. Unfortuantely, it took blood being spilled to get them to do this.

Pullman, Illinois, was founded by railroad sleeping car manufacturer George Pullman as a city for his railroad workers. Built in 1880, the town was conceived as a kind of haven from the political and moral influence of Chicago, Illinois. All its residents worked for the Pullman company, drew paychecks drawn on Pullman's bank, and even had their rent autopmatically deducted from their paychecks. Things were fine for a while until an economic depression hit the country in the early 1890's. In 1893, to keep his business going, Pullman laid off hundreds of workers and cut the pay of those who remained. His mistake was that he also didn't cut their rents, and workers were still getting the same amount deducted from their much smaller paychecks. Workers walked out demanding more pay and lower rents.

Along came Eugene V. Debs, head of the American Railway Union, and he helped them out by getting all railway workers across the nation to boycott trains pulling Pullman cars. This sent the entire nation into turmoil as riots broke out all over the country and delivery of mail was interrupted.

President Grover Cleveland acquiesed to the railroad execs. He declared the strike a federal crime and sent 12,000 troops to break it up. Before it was over, two people were killed by federal marshals. The strike was officially called to an end on August 3, 1894. Eugene Debs went to jail, and the ARU was disbanded. It was pretty much the end of unions until the Great Depression. The public, however, was unhappy with Cleveland's handling of the strike, and to make good with the nation's workers, and just six days after the strike ended, Congress rushed through a bill establishing Labor Day as a holiday and Cleveland signed it into law. But it was not enough to help him win re-election in 1894.

After the Korean War, nearly half of the nation's workers were unionized, but today that number is down to about 15%. More about the history of unions can be found here. We all owe a debt of gratitude to unions and the workers willing to risk all by striking for better conditions. If you have Monday off as a holiday, you can thank the unions. If you have to work (I know what that's like) and you get paid extra for doing so on a holiday, you can thank unions. If you have a forty-hour work week and have the opportunity to get overtime, you can thank unions. If you and your children went to school to learn, instead of a factory to work, you can thank unions.

Enjoy your holiday, and have a safe one while you're at it.

You Are Less Safe Under Bush

2007-09-01T20:32:00.000-04:00

In a cramped room of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), behind a door, is a small area of space. This space is the only place where toys are drop-tested to see if they break into pieces that could become choking hazards. The only space. To test all the toys. And only one full-time worker to do it.

When the CPSC was urged by many groups to ban sales of adult-size All Terrain Vehicles to children under sixteen (they were too big and fast for the children to control), the effort was thwarted by CPSC's director of compliance, John Gibson Mullan. Mr. Mullan used to be a lawyer for the ATV industry. And he's certainly not the only person in the Bush Administration whose job it is to oversee the products made by former employers. Some how, some way, this administration does not see this as a conflict of interest.

A report in The New York Times tells the story of how the CPSC is failing to keep Americans safe from poorly-made products and poisoned foods. One problem is budget cuts, usually resulting in fewer inspectors and fewer inspections. But the main culprit for your decrease in safety is that the Bush administration feels that businesses should not be burdoned with having to comply with safety regulations. They prefer that the standards remain voluntary. Yes, you read that right. Safety standards should be voluntary, not mandatory.

Friends, we have a serious problem in this country, and this story just points to the tip of it. There is a constant battle between those who want to see our nation's products and foods be made as safe as possible, and those who feel that this causes too much financial hardship on businesses and should not be pursued. (The man Bush brought in to head the CPSC, Harold Stratton, personally stopped a recall of ill-made Daisy air-powered BB guns because the manufacturer was in financial trouble. In the choice between your safety and some corporation's well-being, Bush's people chose the corporation over you.) The idea that any manufacturing industry would feel compelled to adhere to voluntary standards when there is no penalty for non-compliance is ludicrous. You can even ask the manufacturers in China (who make about 20% of the consumer products sold in the US) what they think of voluntary standards. They'll tell you, "As far as we are concerned, voluntary means we don’t have to."

And no one in the Bush administration is going to make them do it, either.

A Moral Victory For Equal Rights

2007-08-30T22:59:00.000-04:00

A Polk County judge on Thursday struck down Iowa's law banning gay marriage.

The ruling by Judge Robert Hanson concluded that the state's prohibition on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional and he ordered the Polk County recorder to issue marriage licenses to six gay couples.

So begins an article in the Des Moines Register. Of course, the Republicans won't stand for this:

House Minority Leader Christopher Rants, R-Sioux City, said the judge's ruling only illustrates the need for a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

"I can't believe this is happening in Iowa," he said. "I guarantee you there will a vote on this issue come January."

You know, when it comes to constitutional amendments, the Republicans always want to take away your right to do something, not guarantee it. Whether it's the right to die, the right to marry someone of the same gender, or even the right to express your first amendment rights by burning a flag, the Republicans are the ones who want to amend the constitution to prevent it. Why is that? Why do Republicans hate Freedom?

Joke Time: Sunday Morning Sex

2007-08-26T15:41:00.000-04:00

Upon hearing that her elderly grandfather had just passed away, Katie went straight to her grandparent's house to visit her 95-year-old grandmother and comfort her. When she asked how her grandfather had died, her grandmother replied, "He had a heart attack while we were making love on Sunday morning." Horrified, Katie told her grandmother that 2 people nearly 100 years old having sex would surely be asking for trouble.

"Oh no, my dear," replied granny. "Many years ago, realizing our advanced age, we figured out the best time to do it was when the church bells would start to ring. It was just the right rhythm. Nice and slow and even. Nothing too strenuous, simply in on the Ding and out on the Dong." She paused to wipe away a tear, and continued, "He'd still be alive if the ice cream truck hadn't come along."

Before Discussing Iraq

2007-08-26T12:46:00.001-04:00

Often, while posting at my favorite hangout for intellectual delinquents, Think Progress, I encounter some "wit" from the conservative side (or, as I prefer to think of it, the Dark Side) who likes to throw out "Well, Mr. Liberal, what would YOU do to win the war in Iraq?" This question has no answer in today's debating context, because a discussion of Iraq has to start with a certain foundation of facts. And the Dark Side, as we who have attempted to engage them in debate know, does not use facts in their arguments. And that is a fact.

To begin with, the Dark Side must define what they mean by "win in Iraq". What does "winning" mean? It's a fair question, but it's hard to get a definitive answer on that when you ask them. Because their concept of "winning" is always changing. At first it was to depose Saddam, install a democratically-elected government, and get out with the area stabilized because Iraq would be ruled by the people and not some tyrant. That may not be it exactly (either by the official, public account or the real, secret account), but that's the gist of what the idea of "winning" was when we started.

Then Saddam was caught, tried, convicted by a rigged jury system (he had no chance of winning), and executed. Meanwhile, during that time, a democratically-elected government was put in place and it has, to this date, struggled to gain any respect or actual ability to effectively govern. So why are we still there? Well, there's still too much "instability", and now you've got al Qaeda getting a foothold in Iraq. And because al Qaeda is one of our "enemies" in the "War on Terror", we have to stay there and "defeat them". So, the mission has changed, hasn't it? My question is, "Says who?" But we're getting ahead of ourselves.

What the Dark Side refuses to ackowledge is that they have been wrong about virtually everything regarding the invasion of Iraq right from the beginning. That is a fact. Not only were they wrong, but the people who managed to convince the country that invading Iraq was necessary were lying about the reasons. That is also a fact. That's not just Bush-hating rhetoric from an anti-War veteran of the Air Force, and it's not just my opinion. They lied, and if they want to disprove that, then they should release every piece of information they had (including, and particularly, where it came from). After all, aren't they the kind of people who like to say, "If you've done nothing wrong, then you've got nothing to worry about"? But they won't do that, because the evidence would prove that the things they said were certainly true were not only highly in dispute then, they were flat out wrong! And when the proof they claimed would be found never was, they started changing what they claimed Saddam had. ("Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs", instead of actual weapons.) Aluminum tubes that could only be used for "one thing", that is, once you mill off an anodized coating put there for the tube's "original purpose". The things they told us that they knew to be untrue when they said them would fill volumes of books, and they do, and they're out there.

The point is, they have been wrong about everything, and now they want us to accept the framing of the issue at hand. They insist that there is a "Global War on Terror" (when they're not insisting that there isn't) and that we are fighting the terrorists in Iraq. Well I don't see it that way. The way I see it is that Presidents George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have deliberately unleashed our military on an ill-conceived, ill-thought-out "mission" to achieve an objective that they haven't been honest about from the beginning, including the admission that this was a guy who tried to kill Bush's "daddy." Why should they have any say at all in this discussion, if they won't admit the basic facts about the reasons we are there in the first palce? We are there because they fucked up and took on more than they could handle, and they expect us to accept that any solution to what's going on in Iraq must begin with the framework in which they launched it. No it does not. Any solution to the ongoing occupation in Iraq by our forces must begin with an admission of culpability about everything, including the lies, and the acceptance of the fact that if they're not going to operate within a framework of reality and not ideology (that everyone wants Democracy, for one), then they are unfit to be a part of the solution.

Recess Appointments Have To Go

2007-08-18T14:35:00.000-04:00

The ongoing tragedy (now "catastrophe") at the Crandall Canyon Mine in Huntington, Utah, should serve as a wake-up call that we need to amend the constitution to take away the Executive's authority to make recess appointments, or, at the very least, severely restrict its usage with clear, specific language. (None of this crap where the president can fill a vacancy because he claims it's a national emergency to not have a particular post filled.)

Despite being rejected not once, but twice, by the Senate to head the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), Bush went ahead and used his authority to put Richard Stickler, a former executive in a mining company, in there as a recess appointment. There was a reason why Stickler was rejected not once but twice. He has a terrible safety record and he is so on the side of mine owners that he has said that he doesn't feel there is any need for new laws or regulations for mining safety. Congress has vowed to hold hearings "at the appropriate time" (which, I guess, means once this particular tragedy has come to its final resolution.) Obviously nothing they do can ever bring back the six miners lost in the original accident (hope is fading that they are still alive) nor the three resucers killed trying to save them. My condolences to their families. I am sorry that your loved ones fell victim to an administration that doesn't care one way or the other if you live or die, as long as someone can make money off it.

The recess appointment was seen as useful during a time when the Congress met for less than half a year before going back to their farms or businesses or families. But those days are long gone, and now the Congress is rarely in recess for more than a month and a half. Six weeks is not a long time to go without someone being at the head of any agency. If they picked their subordinates well (and the Senate didn't rubberstamp them), the number two person should be able to handle executing the laws of the country just fine. If they can't, then they shouldn't be in that position in the first palce. I do not believe the framers of the constitution ever intended that a twice-rejected nominee would ever get put in that position through a recess appointment. Perhaps one of the stipulations would be that no person rejected by the Senate could be given a recess appointment. Then we wouldn't get people like John Bolton as our UN Ambassador. Bolten was famous for saying that if ten floors of the United Nations building were blown up, it wouldn't make any difference. He also said once (on The Daily Show) that the president is there to serve the people who elected him, not the entire country. (He also said that President Lincoln's cabinet were all people who thought like he did. Luckily, the next night, Doris Kearns Goodwin, author of "Team of Rivals", corrected the record on that point.)

The problem comes when we assume that our government officials will act on behalf of the people, and not corporations. Corporations have no constitutional rights whatsoever, only people do. Corporations do have have any right to vote, only people do. And yet there are people in this country who actually believe that businesses should be unregulated, that "the market" will weed out the bad business practioners, and that making a profit should be the only concern of any corporation. Two of those people are the president and vice president. And yet these two men have demonstrated time and again, through the appointments they have made, that the will, safety and well-being of the people are of no concern, that the wishes of businesses are more important than the will of the people, and that laws that require business owners to keep their employees safe are unnecessary. Because, to their way of thinking, anything that takes away from profits is inherently a bad thing.

For a variety of reasons, George Bush has proven that he has been a terrible president (many think the absolute worst) because many of the things he has done he has done specifically to get around the laws preventing him from doing what he wants to do. His recess appointments have frequently been used to get people into positions the Senate said they were unfit to hold. This is not acting in "good faith". This could even could be contrued as not faithfully executing the laws of the country. And that is a clear and undeniable breach of his constitutional oath of office. We can't take any chances that we will never have a president as bad (if not worse, though that's hard to imagine) as Bush. He has become the poster boy for consitutional reform. The president's duty is to carry out the laws, not make up his own, and not to ignore the ones on the books already. Those miners, and the rescuers lost going after them, are all victims of this administrations "profit at all cost" mentality. My heart goes out to their families.

UPDATE: The Congressional Research Service issued a report on George Bush's recess appointments that can be viewed here.

Give 'Em the Bird, Vote For a Third! Pt 5 - Party Line Voting

2007-08-12T16:03:00.000-04:00

I came across some great websites for getting information about not only past elections but past votes in Congress. One is the official House of Representatives House Clerk's website. It has links to roll call votes (mostly through Thomas) and it has links to the results of past elections of US Representatives, including the 2006 election results. What I like is the breakdown of which party got how many votes.

As I looked through the 2006 Official results, I saw some interesting things. For example, in New York State, there were an awful lot of Blank/Scanning Error votes, some on the order of 10% or more! In fact, my own Congressman, Rep John "Still The One" Hall beat incumbent Sue Kelly by fewer votes than there were uncountable ones! Out of curiosity, I compared the "spoilage" to another state's vote. In Wisconsin, they cast about two million votes statewide, and the number of spoiled votes in the Senate race was about two thousand, or about one-tenth of one percent! Something is very wrong here, and very alarming.

With paper ballot voting, there wouldn't be nearly so many counting errors, and not nearly so many votes thrown away uncounted. The fancier the technology gets, the easier it is to mess it up. What are we waiting for, mind reading technology so we just walk into a booth, pull a lever, and all our thoughts are "calculated" and "analyzed" and a vote spits out for the Republican candidate anyway? Even with a Democrat running unopposed? Don't let the fancy stuff fool you into thinking your vote will be counted. Demand paper balloting as the best insurance against Election Vote Counter Fraud.

Find and support candidates who favor a move away from electronic voting. Repeal the Help (corrupt) America('s) Vote Act (HAVA). Don't let the Democrats and Republicans continue to run this country against your best interests. GIVE 'EM THE BIRD, VOTE FOR A THIRD!

Stay Tuned (Merv Griffin, 1925-2007)

2007-08-12T12:45:00.000-04:00

Merv Griffin has died at the age of 82. America owes this man a debt of gratitude for what he has brought to our culture. In addition to being an Emmy-winner, a singer, a real estate baron, and a highly successful producer, I will remember Merv as the Elevator Killer, in Steve Martin's "The Man With Two Brains", who injected his victims with window cleaner, thus causing their brains to die last (which was an important plot point.) But we should all remember him for creating two of the best, most successful, and most popular game shows in television history.

If you ever clapped your hands, even as a joke, and said, "Big money, big money" (for whatever reason), you can thank Merv. If you ever looked at someone's name with a whole bunch of consonants throughout and thought (or said), "I'd like to buy a vowel, please," you can thank Merv. And if you ever made a joke to someone about "Once you buy a prize (car, dog, lover, etc.), it's yours to keep," you can thank Merv. We get all those fun expressions from "Wheel of Fortune", the longest running and most popular game show ever. And Merv Griffin created it. Thank you, Merv.

In response to the quiz show scandals, Merv was talking with his wife about how to create a new one, in which they couldn;t be accused of giving the contestants the answers in advance. And Merv's wife said, "Why not give them the answers and make them come up with the questions?" And Jeopardy! was born. This has always been my personal favorite, and not because I can get a lot of the "responses" correct, if not always in the form of a question. One big hint is to ignore the real trivia and concentrate on what is probably the only thing you know about the person. For example (this is made up), "This Confederate Army commander once worked as a feed salesman when he was twelve." We all know who was the commander of the Confederate Army, so the correct question must be, "What was Robert E. Lee?" Who knows if he ever worked as a feed salesman when he was twelve and, as Clark Gable famously said, "Frankly, my dear, who the fuck cares?"

We can thank Merv not only for Jeopardy!, but for its famous "Think Music" that they play during Final Jeopardy!, or when the manager has the whole infield on the mound to discuss how they'll pitch to the next batter. I like when they do that because the ump usually gives them the whole thirty seconds and times his appearance to tell them to break it up just as the music is ending, as if it interrupting the music would be a sin which the fans might not forgive. Merv Griffin wrote that music.

Thanks, Merv, for giving smart-asses like me the opportunity to show off a useless talent for trivia and Hangman Puzzle-solving. We wouldn't be the America we are today without your creations. When asked once what he would like his headstone to read, it was simply this:

STAY TUNED

Take A Stand Campaign

2007-08-11T12:41:00.000-04:00

Americans Against Escalation in Iraq has launched what they call the "Take A Stand Campaign":

The "Take a Stand Campaign" is a nation-wide organizing drive to demand that members of Congress and the Senate take a stand with the vast majority of Americans who want a safe and responsible redeployment of American Forces from Iraq.

Note that they are not talking aboput a "withdrawal", they are talking about a "responsible redeployment" of our troops. The troops may not necessarily get sent straight home, but perhaps they would be in less danger if they were taken out of the middle of the fighting.

They have also launched Iraq Summer:

IraqSummer is a campaign organized by Americans Against Escalation in Iraq and the Campaign to Defend America, designed to turn public opinion against the war in Iraq into political pressure on members of Congress who stand in the way of a responsible end to the war.

They have videos of various Iraq Summer activities such as chasing down Rep Thelma Drake (R-VA) and trying to get her to explain her stance on Iraq, and protest events aimed at Senator Mitch McConnell, plus a whole lot more. Amusing if you like Republican war mongers trying to avoid explaining themselves.

Ratify the Child Labor Amendment

2007-08-10T22:37:00.000-04:00

In doing some research into constitutional amendments, I learned some interesting things. Currently, there are 27 Amendments to the US Constitution. The first 10 are known as the Bill of Rights. This much we all know. (Some of us may not remember the exact number of amendments, but we know about the Bill of Rights.) Or do we? The first ten Amendments that were ratified were actually part of a set of twelve Amendments. Of the two that did not get ratified at that time, one was about a formula for the number of US Representatives which is still technically pending. The other Amendment eventually did get ratified to become our 27th (or, if you prefer, XXVII) and most recent. It requires that before any bill increasing the pay for the Representatives and Senators could "take effect", an election of Representatives shall have "intervened", meaning come first, so the voters could tell them, "No, you can't have that pay raise you voted yourself, but your successor will have to start there." I guess the question has become, technically, "What does 'take effect' mean?" Does it mean start and keep going once that first election of Representatives has occurred, never to be stopped except by another separate law? Or does it mean that no new pay increase, regardless of when passed, could begin until another election of Representatives? If that's more the case, then these annual cost-of-living pay increases that Congress gets may be unconstitutional. But what can we do about it? Ask them? You know, that's crazy enough that it just might work!

What surprised me was that there have only been five other Amendments that have been sent to the states for ratification. For some reason, I suspected that there would have been more. But only two of those other six have been rejected due to time limit expiration. There are four still, technically, pending. One of them is the The Child Labor Amendment.

Section 1. The Congress shall have power to limit, regulate, and prohibit the labor of persons under eighteen years of age.

Section 2. The power of the several States is unimpaired by this article except that the operation of State laws shall be suspended to the extent necessary to give effect to legislation enacted by the Congress.

I was also surprised to find that not only was it still pending because it had no expiration date written into it, it had only been ratified by 28 states. The folks living in Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming can all be proud that your states have ratified this Amendment. The State Senates of New York, Mississippi, and Nebraska (before it became Unicameral) ratified it, but their respective Lower Houses did not. And even though they can still later ratify it, as "rejecting" it technically means nothing, the following twelve states actually rejected the Child Labor Amendment. Those proud states are: Florida, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, and on at least three distinct occasions, Louisiana.

It's not too late. Even if it's just the ten states that haven't finished deciding one way or the other, it can still become an Amendment if the Legislatures of Alabama, Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Mississippi, Nebraska, New York, Rhode Island, and South Dakota all decide to do the right thing and ratify this Amendment. You may not believe this, but there was a time in this country's history when a child who reached the age of five or six was put to work for the family, either in a field picking crops or at a factory. Laws alone are not a guarantee of rights, and states are free to set their own rules. I wonder what kind of Child Labor Laws they have in the states that rejected this Amendment? Especially Lousiana, which seemed emphatic about not ratifying it.

A Step in the Right Direction

2007-08-04T18:34:00.000-04:00

A report in the Washington Post reveals that California is, at the very least, standing up to the corrupt electronic voting machine companies. And when I say "corrupt", I'm talking about the companies that make electronic voting equipment that "just happen" to fail in ways that virtually always favor Republicans.

If you haven't been keeping up with this issue, I strongly urge you to check out Bev Harris' great site Black Box Voting to learn more about how our democracy is being stolen from us. One company, Election System & Software, was run by now-Senator Chuck Hagel, who won a surprising victory where 85% of the vote was counted on his voting machines. Sort of looks suspicious, doesn't it?

And this isn't just "conspiracy talk" nonsense, either. There have been documented instances where a voter's attempt to vote for a Democrat was switched by the machine to the vote for the Republican. Though they may have happened, I am unaware of any instance in which an electronic voting machine tried to change a vote for a Republican to a vote for a Democrat. Pay attention to this issue, folks. Learn what the rules are regarding alternate ballots in your state. If you can, fill one out on paper.

They should have banned the machines altogether, but at least California headed toward the right drection, if somewhat hesitantly.

The Fourth Means Even Less Now

2007-08-04T17:48:00.000-04:00

The US Senate voted to erode, yet again, the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. The Democrats, in particular, are so afraid of the names they'll be called by their opponents next year, that they lack the courage to stand up to this power-hungry, law-breaking, unconstitutional monarchy of a government. They sicken me. (Via Raw Story.) "White House deputy spokesman Tony Fratto said the bill would give US spy agencies the tools they needed to fight terrorism." They don't get it! Under our constitutional system of government, they are not entitled to get that they feel they "need", they are entitled to get what will not violate the constitutional rights of the citizens of the United States. And if that means they can't have the best possible toys to spy on us, so be it! Find a way to do it within the law and the constitution, or move to another country. Like Paraguay.

If you are among the people who believe that the government (particularly one run by an administration with a solid and verifiable reputation for not abiding by the law) should be allowed to do "whatever it takes", even if it is unconstitutional, to fight whoever they say are your enemies, how long before you start seeing your friends, or people you would never have suspected of being involved with terrorists, start having their lives ruined by the government, and sometimes over a mistake? How would you like to find out the hard way that the charity to which you've been giving hundreds of dollars or more over many years also uses a small percentage of it to support groups that use violence? Under the rules they want to impose, a check from you would be enough to have your citizenship stripped away from you. (And they wouldn't have to actually convict anyone of using that money for terrorist or violent purposes, either.) I said that was under the rules they want to have; I don't believe they've gotten there yet. I hope.

Please don't take this as coming fromt he wrong place. Yes, I'm a Liberal, and the Liberal in me is opposed to everything about this president's neo-conservatism. But this is coming from the Libertarian in me, who fears having even a Democrat in the White House with these powers. This is not a Liberal/Conservative issue, it is a Libertarian/Authoritarian issue. And I know that there are a lot more of you who are like me on this than there are who are like them. Call your Representatives right away and tell them you don't want to give up any of your rights just because the neo-cons have frightened everyone through their poor management of the government with which they were entrusted. The US Senate, sadly, has already fallen tothe enemy.

Photos: Nature

2007-07-30T00:01:00.000-04:00

I always used to enjoy drawing when I was young, and thought that I was good at it. After three years of Art in high school, and majoring in Art in my one year of college, I realized that I was quite wrong. My fellow students were VASTLY superior in talent and vision, even in high school (John Whalley, 'Berta Egan [aka "Bobbie" Egan], Catherine Vanaria, Gene Gort, I'm bowing to you!)

Eventually I turned to (amateur) photography to express myself, and have had found more fulfillment with this venue. Here is a selection of "Nature"-themed photos with which I am pleased. I hope that you enjoy them, too.