TV's 10 Least Appealing Women
Maxim magazine has published a list of TV's 10 least appealing women. I can't access Maxim's website from work ("provocative attire"), but I do see that Fran Drescher, Tina Fey, Pam Grier and Christine Amanpour are on the list. What I immediately thought of is their noses. None of those four women have what you would call a "normal, WASP button nose." They are all sort of ethnic-looking. I don't know who made their "most appealing" list, but apparently if you don't look like a Stepford Wife, you don't make the cut. None of these four women are unattractive in the least. I didn't compare their breast sizes--that might have something to do with it, too. Tina Yothers is punk-looking now (have you seen Celebrity Fit Club?) and Peggy from King of the Hill is a cartoon. Just the fact the Kathy Najimy does her voice should give her some extra points to keep her off of this list.

Hotel Security Guard Killed
This man was probably going to retire next year. He was killed during a robbery at a Fairfield Inn in Clearwater, Florida

Does he really buy his own bullshit?
Ok, who HASN'T heard the quote about "bombing Pakistan back to the stone age"? Bush is seriously trying to pass off that he only just heard about this today? You KNOW Rove and Cheney were smirking and chortling about it when it was first said right after 9/11! And Bush has the best intel in the world--so good that he knows things about Iraq that no one else in the entire world knows (including Saddam Hussein)--yet he NEVER EVEN HEARD this quote until today? I am the LAST one to help out Bush, but he would have been much more "credible" (if that is possible) for him to say that he had heard the comment, but that it was not representative of the Administration's viewpoint, or something like that. This is not a case where plausible deniability applies, since the quote was all over every press agency (I'm sure Fox News had a banner with the quote put up on their wall).

Death of Hatred
Louis Farrakhan has revealed he is seriously ill. This man has spread division and hate across the US and the world for the last 50 years. It will be a great day indeed when he finally kicks the bucket.

Further Proof of Serfdom
Two things have surfaced that further prove the the rich are becoming richer and the poor are being relegated to serfs or indentured servants again.

(1) I have a bunch of bills to pay off, including medical bills, and have been trying to find a part-time job. So far, every job I have applied for has checked my credit score. I've applied at over half a dozen companies, and so far I can't even get an INTERVIEW at any of them. I've been at my job for 13 years, have only lived at 2 different addresses in the last 10 years, can provide a dozen personal and business references, can pass a criminal background check and a drug test, and I have a 1-year diploma in retail management. However, I am voted "most likely to steal" in the Job Applicant Yearbook because of my low credit score. The people that most need a job and make money can't get work (or extremely low-paying work) because of economic status discrimination. If I said, "Oh, statistically a higher percentage of blacks steal than whites, so I'm not going to hire blacks to handle money at my store," I would be in court so fast my head would spin. But, I'm allowed to say, "Oh, statistically a higher percentage of poor people steal than wealthy people, so I'm not going to hire poor people at my store," and it's perfectly legal. As a matter of fact, studies have shown that credit checks are UNRELIABLE when trying to predict when someone will steal. I wonder if Ken Lay and Jeffrey Skilling had good credit scores? I'm betting that they did.

(2) There are no more millionaires on the Forbes Richest 400 list. They are all BILLIONAIRES now. In fact, the total net worth of the Richest 400 went UP by $120 billion from last year.

President Clinton addresses criticisms of his handling of bin Laden
Clinton finally tears into someone for criticizing how he handled bin Laden. I distinctly remember the Embassy bombings. I remember Clinton's retalination against al Qaeda and the media reaction. (1) It was during the Monica Lewinsky hearings and (2) it was just after the movie "Wag the Dog" came out. People were SCREAMING that Clinton was just trying to take attention away from his sex scandal, instead of legitimately reacting to an attack against US property. You can think what you want to about his infidelity, but Clinton reacted to al Qaeda. As he says in this interview, he had an anti-terrorism plan when he left office and Bush didn't do anything with it until after 9/11. Now, those same people are SCREAMING that 9/11 is all Clinton's fault because he didn't do ANYTHING about the threat of bin Laden and al Qaeda while he was in office. Well, hopefully the gloves are off and Clinton can start telling it how it really is. It might also help strengthen the Democrat's position for the November elections, since being weak on National defense is a major obstacle for them. Be sure to read the whole interview; it's very good.

King George IV

It's very ironic that the United States declared its independence from King George III over 200 years ago and made a list of his abuses of office in the Declaration of Independence. Now, we find ourselves at the mercy of another (King) George, and his list of abuses actually don't fall too far from King George III's. Actually, each one of reasons below can fit our George as well as theirs! Is anyone paying attention? I'm not the first one to notice this.

First of all, here's the complete Declaration of Independence. You know, I don't think I've ever read the whole thing before. At least not in the historical context of George W. Bush. I have highlighted in red the passages that seem to particularly apply to today's administration:

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, - That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. - Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. (although Bush actually only vetoed one law, but one that had the potential to benefit all of mankind--stem cell research.)

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them. (Does appointing John Bolton to the U.N. while Congress was in recess count?)

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only. (Does helping to introduce laws to benefit the wealthy and the oil industry rather than laws to help most of the regular people in the country fit?)

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people. (GW would if he could, especially if the Democrats win back both houses of Congress in November. "Reserving the right" to ignore Congress whenever he wishes amounts to nearly the same thing. )

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within. (How about just appointing incompetent people to important positions ["Heckuva job, Brownie"])

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands. (Immigration "reform")

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers. (Does holding out for extremely conservative judges on the Supreme Court count? Eh, close enough.)

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries. (How many Supreme Court Justices and federal justices did he appoint?)

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance. (The Department of Homeland Security. 'Nuff said.)

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures. (This is a stretch, but I don't believe Congress ever declared war on Iraq, and most of our Army Reserve and National Guard units have been activated to go over there, technicallylly the US is at "peace.")

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power. (His effort to have "military tribunals" to judge the detainees at Guantanamo.)

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: (He has said on numerous occasions that the office of the President can override laws. His "signing statements" and illegal/unconstitutional wiretapping are examples of this.)

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us: (This is certainly true in Iraq, where we have thousands of troops. And, here in the US, weren't we encouraged to rat on our friends and neighbors of they did anything suspicious?)

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States: (Abu Ghraib, any one?)

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world: (Sanctions against Cuba, Iran, decreased trading with "leftist" leaning governments in South America, nameVenezuelaela.)

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: (When does anyone really consent to more taxes? But how else is he gonna pay for his little wars?)

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury: ("Detainees" in Guantanamo, secret CIA prisons)

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences: (The CIA's rendition program. Several recent victims of rendition have come out to tell their stories and prove their innocence.)

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies (This is close enough to "invading a sovereign nation" and replacing its government with your own.)

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments: (Chipping away at the Bill of Rights. Saying that National Security override civil liberties. Saying it is the right and duty of the government to spy on its citizens.)

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever. (This is close enough to his "signing statements" where Bush has basically said he can contradict or override whatever law he is signing just because he is the president.)

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us. (Don't think the "War on Terror" stops at the US border. It extends right into your newspaper, your living room, and your telephone, even declaring U.S. citizens "enemy combatants".)

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. (Of you think of "our" in global terms. This is especially true of Iraq, and, for now, Iraq is "ours".)

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries completeeat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation. (This speaks for itself and needs no tweaking to completely apply to GW.)

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands. (Basically, forcing Iraqis to attack Iraqis, whether they want to or not.)

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions. (This is a little politically incorrect ["merciless Indian Savages"?], but basically he has agents among us in the form of the Department of Homeland Security that has "excited domestic insurrections amongst us".)

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. (Amen, brother! By the way, a tyrant in ancient Rome simply meant that he came to power by illegal means, not necessarily that he was a bad or mean ruler. GW certainly qualifies as a "tyrant" using that definition.)

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred. to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. - And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

- John Hancock

New Hampshire:Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts:John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island:Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut:Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York:William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey:Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania:Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware:Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland:Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia:George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina:William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina:Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia:Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

Here is a little more current and detailed list of George Bush's transgressions against the American people.

If I were President

We all daydream about being President from time to time. I've been daydreaming lately about what I would do differently than the current administration:

First of all, I would get the troops out of Iraq, but that's nothing different than anyone OTHER than George W. Bush would do.

I would try to get a bill introduced to end the production of completely internal combustion engines in the US. I would like it to say "OK, by Jan 1, 2008, all new cars sold in the US have to be either E85, hybrid electric, completely electric, or hydrogen. They CANNOT run 100% on gas (unless it's E85)." The bill would also need to say that in X number of years (preferably 5, but possibly 10) that new cars sold in the US could not run on gasoline at all--they would have to be 100% electric or 100% hydrogen. Get some movement toward ending our dependence on oil! Of course most of the current administration earned their fortunes from oil, so they don't do anything than give a little bit of lip service towards ending our oil dependence.

Next, instead of just throwing our military toward every problem the US has (or creates), I would sit down with other world leaders to find out 1) why everyone hates the US and 2) what we could do about it. I would sit down with the presidents of Iran and Syria and Venezuela. Why not? They can't bite. Find out exactly what they want from their own mouths and what we would do to work better together. Chavez seems to be the darling of the world right now, making deals with Cuba, China and Iran (mostly to piss off the US--I think it's hilarious). I think a US administration could learn something from him.

I would also end our embargo of Cuba. Come on now, being pissed at Castro for the Cuban missile Crisis is getting a little old. OK, so he's an oppressive regime. So what? Business is business. Oh, he's Communist? Well, we can fucking well vote China as "most favored nation" but we can't sell Cuba engine parts? Get over yourself, it's not that serious. Hell, after Castro dies, we could probably make Cuba our 51st state and not too many would mind. Wouldn't that be cool?

I would try to legalize pot. I think smoking pot is kinda dumb, but overall, I don't think it's that harmful. We would have to have laws about driving or working high, but if people want to smoke some weed at home, what's the big deal? Oh, and I would tax the hell out of it and pay off the federal deficit.

I would throw all the money I possible could toward stem cell research and HIV prevention/research.

How to solve the social security problem? That's easy. Right now, if you make over something like $94,000/year or something like that, you don't pay SS tax on the additional amount. I would at least double it. Ok, let's make it $200,000. No, how about $500,000. Why not just make it an even $1 million. The Social Security program would have so much money coming out their ears, they wouldn't know what to do with it all. Then I would have them take the extra money and make sure that everyone drawing Social Security had full health coverage, including prescription drugs. Hell, since we can't get universal health care passed, why not at least give health coverage to every dependent child? The poor need SOME help!

While I'm at it, why not just get rid of the Income Tax altogether and just make a sales tax instead?

Since we're talking about helping the poor, let's try to help end some of the predatory practices that make poor people automatically into criminals just for being poor. Let's add "economic status" or "credit score" to the anti-discrimination clauses. Did you know many jobs run a CREDIT SCORE on potential applicants and will refuse to hire applicants with a low credit score? Did you know it's perfectly legal to charge people with a low credit score thousands of dollars more in interest than those with good scores? So, the people who can least afford it can't get hired at many jobs and can't pay off the debts or loans they have. This just creates a circle of poverty that is impossible to escape simply because they aren't allowed to.

Let's start naming names of Congressman who won't vote for bills that will actually help people out because the lobbyists don't want them to. If I got a bill introduced (the car one, for example) and certain Congressmen didn't vote for it because they were in the pockets of oil companies or other lobbyists, I would call a press conference and name their names and what companies are paying them off to vote it down. Stop playing Mr. Nice guy.

Oh, I'm sure this wouldn't pass, but I would also try to get a bill introduced that would restrict all bills to one subject only. Oh, you can make the bill as wordy as you want to, but don't include abortion laws in a minimum wage bill (like Bill Frist did to kill the minimum wage bill). They have NOTHING to do with each other. Congressmen would say that it saves time, but that's bullshit. That's just rhetoric to get pork barrel laws passed on page 497 of a bill about fishing and wildlife that no one reads. You want to pass a 1,500 page law that declares the pissing bitch shrew endangered in Wyoming? Sure. Oh, page 1,498 includes a $3 billion retirement package for Congressmen, but you won't notice.

And how about starting some contests? The private contest for $10 million for the first private vehicle into space was so successful, people finished way ahead of of the contest end-date. What if the federal government started making contests for things we need? $25 million for a non-gas burning car that can drive 500 miles on one tank/charge whatever. I think we would see an explosion of creativity not seen in years in this country.

And how about reading the news to see what "experts" think you are doing wrong? I mean we know Bush doesn't give a shit about what anyone else thinks--it's his way or the highway, but how about if the president actually watched CNN or read the blogs and listened to people once in a while? That would be novel.

Israel is rewriting history again

This has got to be the one of the greatest cases of the victors ALREADY attempting to rewrite history to make themselves look better.

Here is a more balanced view, incidently also on Haaretz.com.

Kentucky blogging site being blocked

George Bush seen "defacing" flag.

Bill Frist attaches anti-abortion legislation to minimum wage bill.

Ann Coulter is my Hero

I've said it once and I'll say it again. Ann Coulter is an ingeniously created character. You LOVE to hate her. You can't wait to tune in to see what stupid thing she'll say next. You buy her book just to be able to rip apart her moronic statements and PROVE her wrong! Whoops! She got you. She's laughing all the way to the bank. Ann Coulter is the product of a marketing genius. Remember Madonna? Remember her Sex book? It shocked people world-wide and was banned, burned and bought up right and left. Now Madonna lives in a freakin' castle in England. Ann Coulter IS a Saturday Night Live skit. She grew up in a conservative Northeastern setting. She's actually MUCH smarter than she seems. She has a law degree and didn't just barely gradgiate with a D+, she was at the top of her class. She worked in Corporate law. She worked for a Congressman. So what is the common thread? Slick marketing. Lawyers, corporations and politicians thrive on slick marketing.

There are no quotes I can find attributed to Ann Coulter prior to 1997. That was nine years ago. She is forty-five years old. It took her nearly thirty-five years of her life to find out the hot buttons to push. She would have had plenty of intolerant, bigoted, nor'eastern women to study in her conservative Connecticut town. And, she would have had plenty of examples in the corporate and political world of how to pander to the masses. How to get Joe Everyman to buy your product or vote for you.

Apparently, she had leaned conservative all of her life, but a lot of upper middle class blond heiresses from the Eastern seaboard follow their daddy's opinion, so that's not really news. She was editor of her college newspaper. You'd think that if she always had a penchant for crazy, off the wall, foot-in-mouth statements, someone would have turned up one or two prior to 1997. She would have had the perfect opportunity as editor of a college newspaper to give her opinion about any and everything.

However, it took her until her mid thirties to really find her stride. And, she had a perfect role-model: President Clinton. Clinton had an approval rating somewhere around 60%, even during his impeachment hearings. The economy was booming. Things were good in the mid-1990's. However, ask ANYONE and they HATED Clinton. They LOVED to HATE Clinton. He was a smooth-talking, slick politician from the South--the worst kind. He'll shake your hand with one hand and pick your pocket with the other. There was an entire industry built on hating Clinton--the conservative radio talk-show host. Rush Limbaugh, in particular, but also Bill O'Reilly and others became superstars during the Clinton administration hating anything and everything Liberal. How far could you push the envelope? How nutso could you get and still get people to buy your book and pay you to write columns and be on TV? Ann Coulter would find out.

Ann Coulter got her debut on the public stage during the Paula Jones/Bill Clinton trial and saw how easy it was to manipulate people via the media. She wove a web of deceit and then sat back in the middle of her web and waited. It worked. She then invented the Ann Coulter we all know and love today, drawing on her knowledge of law, politics, and the "vain, empty-headed bigots with braces on their brains" [Auntie Mame] that she knew from her youth in Connecticut.

Needless to say, it has been wildly successful. She just launched a new book a couple of days ago, is all over the media, and bought nearly a $2 million dollar home last year. She is a Grand Dame straight out of LA Law, Boston Legal, The West Wing, Melrose Place, 90210, or any other show you can name with a character you LOVE to HATE. You tune in regularly to see what will happen next. And, in this case, Ann Coulter and her stock brokers can't thank you enough.

I always admire when someone so clearly manipulates the public and walks away with a buttload of money. I always thought Madonna was a genius in her own right for that. She always reinvented herself in a way that added a few million to her bank account while keeping her in the papers and on TV. Ann Coulter learned from the best. I haven't had a marketing class in quite a while, but they definitely need to study folks like Ann Coulter and Madonna who manipulate people like pieces on a chessboard and then sit back and reap the rewards.

Ann Coulter is my hero.

Biblical Marriage for Real

This is taken directly from the Atheism/Agnosticism page on About.com. As far as I know, it is the intellectual property of Austin Cline and Public Nuisance. The link to that page is provided below, but I couldn't improve upon it, so I quoted it directly.

Biblical Marriage
Much of the opposition to same-sex marriages is fundamentally religious in nature. Evangelical Christians argue that marriage between two members of the same sex is, from their perspective, simply invalid - and therefore civil marriage law should conform to their ideas on what marriage is. But what, exactly, would a real biblical marriage look like?

Public Nuisance offers us a good idea by creating a Constitutional Amendment on marriage that reflects what the Bible says:

1. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives.

2. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden.

3. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce.

4. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law.

Do you suppose that anyone will go for it? No, I don't think so either... people are certainly free to believe in the validity of requirements like the above, but almost no one believes that such requirements should be imposed by the government and become a part of civil law. They are, quite simply, religious laws which citizens must be free to ignore if they wish.

http://atheism.about.com/b/a/020019.htm?nl=1