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

JFC wristbands

Ok, so it's been over two months since I've posted an update. I've been working on an online training manual for my department at work, and that has taken up most of my time. I don't update my blog from home, so it's has just sat by and waited. Good old Beekman Place.

I read the frickin' news every day and I can't believe the people and politicians in this country keep letting the administration get by with what they do. Especially with the recent charges of mass-murder by the marines in Iraq. AArgh. And today I read this quote:

"It [gay marriage] [is] the one issue I have seen that eclipses even the abortion issue among Southern Baptists," says Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention.

Ok, how about war? How about corruption? How about global warming? How about civil liberties? How about the poor? How about HIV/AIDS?

Jesus Fucking Christ. I'm going to get a bracelet that says just that. Jesus Fucking Christ.

So, apparently hacking the heads off of heathens and playing soccer with them is not such a big deal, but if those same two heathens hold hands, then Armageddon will begin and the beast will rise from the sea.

I think the BIG GAY GOP FEAR FACTOR says it all.

It scares the hell out of me how intent these religious assholes are in making sure they are the only ones with any rights left in America.

It seems as though all sorts of groups are talking, talking, talking about the administration and whether Bush is doing illegal things, but no one seems to be doing anything about it. I can only hope that the negativity goes through the November elections and the Democrats sweep Congress with a 75% majority or more. That's the only way anything is going to happen, because apparently the Democrats have become so spineless that many of them (Clinton, Lieberman) are still supporting the President.

I guess until then, we will just have to settle for tossing Bush around.

Hitler and Bush

A lot has been said about parallels between Bush and Hitler. Of course, there are significant differences, as there would be with any two historical leaders. If you compared Bush to William the conqueror, nay-sayers would say, "Yes, but Bush didn't have to contend with Harald of England, so you can't really compare the two!" while overlooking any actual similarities. The same can be true of Bush and Hitler. There are some similarities between the two. Ok, so Bush doesn't have millions of Jews in concentration camps. In 1933, Hitler didn't either. One of the comparisons that is starkly real is FEAR ("terruh"). In fact, there is a new book about the use of fear in politics, especially as used by Nazi Germany.

And what the hell is the deal with this? South Whidbey High School in Langley, Va, banned t-shirts that had the names of fallen soldiers because it may possibly cause a distraction. Oohh. a distraction. I'm glad it's getting national attention and the ACLU is all over this.

And why is the New York Times a couple of years later? This memo broke at least a year or two ago. There's even a website about it. I'm glad the crackerjack reporters at the New York Times were all over this one. It's nice that our media can report stories when it is popular to do so, instead of when the news actually comes out. Maybe the national media will soon start to report that mush MIGHT have lied about the reasons to go to war with Iraq.

And the current debate about immigration in Washington is definitely polarizing people. Hispanic voters are much-courted voters in many precincts, anyway, and vote largely Democrat, I believe. If the democrats support this bill, that large section of the population may slip through their fingers. If the Democrats came out in full opposition to this bill, they could potentially lock in a huge section of the population for the primaries in May and the general elections in November. But, apparently the Democrats don't want to take any type of stand that might piss off even one person in the entire country, so it's best just to go along with whatever the Republicans want. I'm glad the Hispanic community is so organized that half a million people can demonstrate (peacefully, by the way). But, largely I think it just serves two purposes, not at all related to immigration. It satisfies the "core Republican" that the Republican party stands for reform and wants to protect American against a forms of attack--terrorism AND immigration (neither a terrorist or a damn Mexican is gonna take away your job on MY watch!) and it serves to distract the core voter from the war in Iraq and the growing voice for impeachment.

I'm so disgusted with the news that I read it all the time, but I can barely bother myself to comment on it. The news media is so biased and out of touch with typical attitudes that it's almost laughable. I almost read CNN and others to see what they DON'T report on. I can't even make myself read any news from Iraq. It's all so horrible and unnecessary that I just skip over it. It's all car bombs and dead soldiers. And why? We all know, so I'm not going to beat a dead horse. I just can't for the life of me figure out why the Democratic party has been so effectively neutered that they can't say boo about what the Republicans do.

Bush's approval rating is the lowest of any president this century except for Nixon, and he had to resign the presidency. Clinton's was nearly DOUBLE what Bush's is WHEN THEY IMPEACHED HIM. Feingold introduces a bill for CENSURE and the Democratic party pretty much pretends he doesn't even exist. The congressmen wouldn't even admit that they had heard of it to the press. And the same week, a poll came out that said that over 50% of people would support IMPEACHMENT if Bush lied about the reasons for going to war with Iraq. It would be nice to find a government that represented the people. I'm sure the citizens of Iraq feel the same way.

At least one group of representatives is trying to take on the Electoral College system. They are trying to change the laws state-by-state, not to abolish the Electoral College, but to enact laws that make the Electorates cast their vote for the candidate who wins the popular vote NATIONALLY. I think this is a good first step. And, states have control over how their Electorates cast their vote, so it is a movement that can snowball into something larger. Legislation has already been introduced to reform laws in Illinois. I hope it will move on from there.

I guess Encyclopedia Brittanica isn't looking forward to outsourcing jobs to India. They want the magazine Nature to retract an article that Wikipedia is as accurate as Brittanica. However, as the author of this article points out, Wikipedia is free, Brittanica costs $12 a month. Given that I already pay for Internet access at home, I'll opt for the free version. I think it would be worth the time and expense for schools and libraries to pay for the access, but home users just don't need it. And, Wikipedia users can mark disputed entries and discuss why they dispute them. Can I do the same with Brittanica? Nature found 4 "serious" errors in Brittanica articles, but I'm betting there weren't any tags from the public on them that they might be wrong.

I think I mentioned this before, but there are even more reasons to hate Wal-mart here.

Also, attorney-client privilege doesn't apply to those suspected of colluding with Al-Qaeda. All of my doctors were Indian for my surgery. Dr. Daher, Dr. Sudan, and a lot of other doctors with long names (including Dr. Sexy-hair, but that's another story). You gotta love the Justice Department.

Apparently, 85% of people believe in global warming. I wonder if they also believe in evolution and gravity?

Civic Governments Listening to the People

Several civic governments have passed resolutions to impeach Bush. The San Francisco city council. The Ann Arbor Democratic Party. The Arcata, California city council. The Santa Cruz city council passed a resolution against the war in Iraq. The New York city council passed a resolution condemning the Patriot Act. The Berkeley, California city council passed a resolution for impeachment. The Jersey City city council passed a resolution against the war in Iraq. The Sacramento, California city council passed a resolution calling for the withdrawl of American troops in Iraq. Davis, California residents passed a similar resolution. No less than FIVE Vermont towns approved resolutions calling for Bush's impeachment. More than half of those polled would call for impeachment if Bush lied about the reasons for going to war. Dozens more examples of folks calling for impeachment are listed on Wikipedia. Yet, no action is being taken by our federal elected officials.

None of these resolutions were passed by federal agencies. They are all local governments, so they essentially have no authority over the president. So, why do it at all? I think it sends a message to Congressmen that, even though they are powerless to act, they can at least make their voice heard. It's very clear that none of our elected leaders are actually acting for the will of the people. Republicans are actually still defending Bush and his policies. In fact, earlier today, Brill Frist said, "The American people are solidly behind this president in conducting this war on terror." He doesn't address the resolutions mentioned above, and would brush them off as incidental, I'm sure.

Science by Vote

I have been so disgusted with the way things have been going in politics, I haven't even been able to update my blog. A few times, I have had to stop reading the news entirely and play a nice game, like shooting zombies or something. But, there are some stories in today's news that I want to comment on, so I figured this would be a good time to write an update.

"I Never Studied Law"
When Elmer Fudd chased Bugs Bunny out of the hollow log, Elmer plunges to the ground while Bugs Bunny hovers in mid-air. Bugs announces to the viewing audience that the Law of Gravity doesn't apply to him because he never studied Law. I thought this was very clever when I was little and always wondered if it would work if one wasn't actually aware of the Law of Gravity. Unfortunately, one doesn't have to be aware of the Law of Gravity to be affected by it. However, this does not apply to all spheres of science. You can now just take a vote to see if science should apply. Basically, the Gallup poll blatantly states that old, uneducated Republicans reject the Theory of Evolution outright, despite the "preponderance of scientific evidence." Those numbers decline if you are young, Democrat or have more than a high-school level education. I think this should be expanded to other areas of science. We might be able to rewrite human experience by voting on what is real and what isn't. "Perception is reality." So, let's vote on whether nuclear fission is real or not. Let's all vote that there is no scientific evidence for HIV or AIDS, and maybe it will just go away. I heartily vote that there is absolutely no connection between smoking, fried foods, stress and heart attacks, therefore I am immune to heart disease.

Wal-ocaust
Here is local coverage of a national story. An Atlanta man is making t-shirts that parody the Wal-Mart logo. He has been given a cease-and-desist order by Wal-Mart to help prevent the production of said t-shirts. I certainly hope they fail. If the judge looks at the t-shirts as a parody, then there is a precedent that parodies are protected by freedom of speech. I also seriously doubt that selling a handful of t-shirts will bring any harm to what is the world's largest employer. I might buy a few t-shirts before they are not available any longer. I encourage everyone to do so as well. This article on Alternet further details the "evils" of Wal-Mart. I remember the company that "Rocko's Modern Life" that Mr. Bighead worked for was "Conglomo." Their motto was "We own you." Pretty soon you'll be able to buy yourself at Wal-Mart.

Chevroford Earth Destroyer 3000

I can tell you the Chevroford Earth Destroyer 3000 isn't my idea. It's a combination of something I saw on a comedy television show and something I saw in a political cartoon. I can't specifically name which one of either, but I can tell you it isn't my original idea. However, it has become my favorite vehicle. The style and features may change from year to year, but the old favorite remains the same. The Chevroford Earth Destroyer 3000 is the world's largest SUV. It gets between 3 and 4 miles per gallon, and comes with the Saudi Royal Family Seal of Approval. It's also the hottest must-have vehicle ever, even more popular than the Hummer or the Explorer. It's good to know that for those doctors and lawyers that ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO DRIVE AN EARTH DESTOYER 3000 (or a Hummer) to work every day, the federal government has made THOUSANDS of dollars in tax breaks available to them. Isn't it nice to know that Bush can lie right to your face during the State of the Union speech, as well? I just about spit milk through my nose when I heard him say we were addicted to oil and we needed to reduce our dependence on the Middle East. Two things are 100% true about his presidency, if nothing else. 1) He, his family, and most of his cabinet have made millions of dollars off of Middle East oil and they're not about to make any changes now. Bush said he planned to reduce our dependance on oil by 2025 because by that time he and everyone he knows will be so rich they won't know what to do with it all and it won't matter any more. And 2) Bush's presidency wouldn't even have made it into the history books if it hadn't been for the "Middle East." Without Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, G. W. Bush would be as memorable as President Ford or President Taft.

Surveillance Society
When those of us who read 1984 in junior high were reading about Big Brother being able to see what everyone was doing at all times, many of us blew it off as something that would never happen in our society. After all, we knew what the future looked like: it looked like Star Trek. People weren't looking over your shoulder, monitoring your every move. Your civil liberties will still be protected, even in the year 2400. However, the world after 9/11 has a much different look. People everywhere are seeing more and more video cameras go up around them, and many people defend them as necessary to stop crime. The tell us they are "for our own good." Those four little words can lead to a world of hurt for those of us who think people should have more freedoms, not less. In Chicago, for example, the mayor wants video cameras up around bar and restaurants that stay open late, for our own good, naturally. A classic quote from this article, from Chicago Alderman Ray Suarez, says, "If you're not doing anything wrong, what do you have to worry about?" Well, my main worry is not so much what I think I am doing wrong, but what YOU think I am doing wrong. It's for my own good, naturally. Sadly, the Houston Police Chief Harold Hurtt said exactly the same thing in this article about video surveillance in Houston.

Hotel Hijinks
I talked about this a while back. The hotel industry pays notoriously low wages for their on-property staff. The front desk, housekeepers, waitstaff, etc. make extremely low wages, oftentimes for hotels that charge more per night than I pay a month in rent. Some positions can justify it because the employee is expected to receive tips, such as doormen, porters and waiters and waitresses. Some positions, such as front desk staff, are really the "front lines" in a hotel. They are the face of the hotel, the staff the guest most likely remembers most. However, they are among some of the lowest-paid employees in the industry. Evidently, John Edwards want to change that. There are a few things about my particular part of the hotel industry that I disagree with, such as lowering our raise percentages after 9/11 and never putting them back to pre-9/11 rates, but I really don't think the reservation-side of the hotel industry needs to unionize. However, I completely understand the desire for hotel employees to want to do it. Let's be honest: it's pretty common knowledge that hotel rely on under-educated minority employees to work in the laundry, to clean the rooms, to hand out towels by the pool, etc. Ultimately, any costs of unionization felt by the parent company would be passed on to the guest, anyway, but hotels don't want to have to do that. Marriott fights against unionization very, very vigorously. Once in a while, a hotel staff will go on strike, but we will have little or no information about it. There are legitimate business reasons. Management doesn't want the reservation agents gossiping about it with guests and possibly driving business away by giving a bad impression of the hotel. But any information we get is most definitely management-centric. As I mentioned before, some of the tactics Marriott used a few years ago when there some scuttle about unionization here at the reservation center almost bordered on illegal. I know upper management would never actually do anything illegal just to squash unionization attempts, but some of the lower-level managers, in their zeal to tow the corporate line, probably said some things or made some "off the cuff" policies that may have bordered on infringing peoples right to collective bargaining. It is definitely something for me to be aware of, working in the industry I do, and I will definitely keep an eye on the tactic used here if the topic ever comes up again. It will be interesting to see how Edwards fares with this venture.

Cheney Shoots, Manson Scores

Army of None
If you want to see something that will make you heartbroken and angry, check out MilitaryCity.com. This has every confirmed casualty from Operation Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom. Over 2,500 men and women dead for no good reason. Many have photographs and copies of the story of their death was reported in the news. I think a lot more people should be angry and upset that so many people are dying for nothing. I think there should be more lawsuits against the Pentagon or the government for not protecting the troops. Soldiers are just now beginning to get the proper body armor they should have had all along.
Now, there are reports that the Pentagon has successfully tested a vehicle to help eliminate IEDs, but it is tied up in red tape and none have been shipped to Iraq.

Cheney Shoots, He Scores!
Of course, to top news right now is that Dick Cheney accidentally shot someone while hunting. Boy is his face red!

I'd Buy That For An Allah
I love it that the cartoons of Muhammad that were in the Danish newspaper are now on t-shirts. Their motto should be "pissing off Muslims worldwide." I also wanted one of these Mayor Nagin and the Chocolate City t-shirts, where he looked like Willy Wonka. Their "conservative" t-shirts are a little stoopid. Especially the one that says that if you believe Bush lied about the WMDs, then you have to believe everyone else lied. No, they were basing their decision on the intelligence that Bush provided to us. Here's my analogy:

Bob tells you that the new store at the mall has the best prices on widgets in the city, but you'd better buy them soon before they sell out. He's never seen prices so low. You tell all of your friends about the lowest price widgets in the city. You and all your friends buy widgets from the store. Later, you find out that the the store actually charges double for their widgets that other stores do. You also find out that Bob lied about the price because he was in cahoots with the owner to drum up business. You go back and tell your friends that Bob lied and you now regret paying too much for your widgets and wish you could return it. Does everyone say, "well, if Bob lied, that makes you a liar, too. Sue believed you and told Margaret, so that makes Sue a liar, too. Margaret believed Sue and told John, so that makes Margaret a liar, too."

That's not a logical chain of thought because everyone was basing their belief about the widgets based on one man: Bob. He is the one that lied and you and your friends recognize that you passed on misinformation based on his lie. That's how it is with the members of Congress that now regret voting for war based on Bush's claim that Iraq was supplying the world with terrorists and had chemical or nuclear weapons posed to go off any minute. He had charts, graphs, aerial photos of factories, testimony from Chalabi, and the full backing of Tony Blair. So, we all believed his lie about the widgets and plunked our money down. Now, we regret the decision. Period.

"Remember What the Doormouse Said: Feed Your Head, Feed Your Head"
Marilyn Manson has announced he is going to make a movie about Lewis Carroll (Charles Dodgson). Carroll was weirdo and the movie should be great. Didn't Carroll smoke opium or something?

Give Me Your Rich and Well-Armored, Yearning to Go Overseas
Here's an op-ed piece about how ridiculous Bush's budget proposal is. It cuts billions of dollars from Medicare, Medicaid, other social services and student loans. This is just after Bush said that we need more math and science teachers. I hope all of the elderly Republicans that voted for him are pissed off.

Cartoon Cartoon

Here's a cartoon about Christians and Muslims by Tom McMahon. And he has a right to express his opinion.


I had a long post written up about the cartoon issue and when I went to post it, the site was down and I lost it all. I haven't felt like putting all that effort back into creating another posting about it until now. Especially since a Muslim Dutch Member of Parliament came out supporting the Danish newspaper. She is really an ex-Muslim who is very critical of Islam, and I happen to agree with her. The rioting Muslims around the world need to be given a loud and resounding united message: that you cannot use YOUR religious doctrines to squash MY civil liberties. What if we insisted that they conform to Jewish laws? Granted, it may not be too much different since they are two branches of the same tree, but I'm sure there are Jewish laws that Muslims don't agree with. Here is her personal blog.
One thing I haven't heard anyone talk about yet is the historical context of the prohibition against images of Mohammed. Who set it? What time period was it set in? At that time, virtually the only reason for creating an image of a human was to make a religious figurine or icon. This would have been in direct violation of Islamic, Jewish and Christian laws. But now, we have the capability of being able to create images of people that are NOT icons. No one seriously thinks that if you take a photograph of Nancy Reagan that people are going to automatically begin praying to her because she has an image of her captures on paper. A cartoon is the same thing. There is no way a caricature can be compared to an icon created for religious worship. No one is making that distinction--that the rule is stupid in the first place. Some people are making the case that religious taboos can't dominate secular liberties. Iran threatened to create satirical cartoons of the Holocaust. First of all, their president said the Holocaust never happened, but even if it did, there's nothing wrong with a cartoon about it. I think European papers need to beat them to the punch and publish their own cartoons about the Holocaust. Just to show what freedom of press and freedom of speech means. We absolutely cannot cow-tow to religious fanatics in this case. Some people believe that the European countries "blinked" when the Muslims around the world began rioting. I disagree. Europe hasn't blinked yet. The riots are just an example of terrorists taking more hostages to get the West to do what they want. This time, the hostages are dollars in the form of business and assets instead of people. The terrorists will "give back" the business and stop torching the embassies when Western governments ban pictures of Mohammed and apologize for the insult. I hope this solidifies the West in their uniform decision to just say "no" to terroristic threats on our civil liberties. We've been letting Bush whittle away at them for five years now, we don't need to curb them because someone in another country doesn't think they fit in with HIS religious perspective.

Here is a good narrative of the values of Danes, as observed by a Canadian who married one.
Here's a timeline of the cartoon controversy from CBC news.
Here's proof that an Egyptian newspaper printed the cartoons in October, 2005, and there was no protest or outrage.

I officially demand that every newspaper in the world print the cartoons on the front page immediately. I would be willing to exempt the Arab newspapers, of course. Historically, Communism is atheist. There are large protests planned in Hong Kong. I love this quote:

Khan Muhammad Malik, vice-chairman of the Islamic Federation of Hong Kong, said
he had wept at the portrayal of the Prophet.
"We love the Prophet more than our family, more than money, more than life itself," he said. "All we want is for our religion to be treated with the same respect as others."

And, here's an op-ed that asks fellow Muslims to lighten up and points out many of the inconsistencies in the arguments of the Arab governments condemning the cartoons.

Here's a rather intelligent op-ed on a website written by an Iranian that brings up the great point that not allowing cartoons of Mohammed is in itself creating a form of idolatry of him by exempting him from being portrayed, but allowing cartoons of Mary, Jesus and God (point #5).
Point #6 also points out that the governments of western nations are not responsible for the information printed in newspapers, since the media is not stat-owned.

There are a few other points that are not readily taken into consideration:
1) The cartoons were not protested against until December, when a group of Danish Muslims went around the Middle East showing the 12 cartoons that were printed in Denmark, along with additional, more inflammatory cartoons that were not among the originals. These men should be hunted down as terrorists and held responsible for the deaths that have occurred from their actions.
2) As mentioned above, the cartoons were printed in Egypt in October with no violent protests.
3) There is no actual ban on a cartoon of Mohammed anywhere is Islam. It is tradition not to portray him, but not Islamic law.
4) There is no way a sensible human would confuse a cartoon with an icon. Lacking a crucifix, a priest would not grab a piece of notebook paper, draw a cartoon of Christ, and tape it above the altar.

I Hope They Don't Have TV In Mexico

Goodbye, Coretta
With any luck, Coretta Scott King was too "out" of it to see any television today, or she would have seen Samuel Alito voted onto the Supreme Court before she passed away today. She would have seen the beginning of the end of civil liberties her husband fought for half a century ago. She would have seen that privileged, wealthy white men rule the universe after all. With any luck, Coretta Scott King passed from this earth without seeing any of that today and can finally join her husband in a place where his dreams become reality.

I Live in a Red State

Betrayed by Our Own
One of the advantages of living in a Red State is that you don't have to worry about who's a Democrat and who's a Republican. All of the Congressional representatives from my state are Republicans, even the Democrats. For example, one of our senators is a Democrat: Ben Nelson. Prior to today, he was one of four Democrats that publicly announced support for Samuel Alito, the Supreme Court nominee. In fact, eighteen of the Democrats in the Senate ended up voting to force a vote for Alito on Tuesday. It's amazing to me that everyone keeps saying how Alito wants to overturn Roe v. Wade, expand presidential powers, and reign in those "out of control" civil rights that everyone seems to be taking advantage of. But when it comes down to it, not even the democrats will stand up and vote "no". I guess we'll see tomorrow who actually votes for him. I'll laugh my ass off if they forced a vote today and secretly have enough votes to turn down his appointment. That would be a terrific message to send to Bush on the day of his State of the Union address.

A while back, I e-mailed Ben Nelson and Chuck Hagel, asking them to vote "no" on Alito. Obviously, both of them voted "yes." Hagel didn't reply at all. Here is Nelson's e-mail reply:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito, Jr. to serve as Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. I value your input on this important judicial nomination.

As you know, Judge Alito was nominated to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has announced her intent to resign upon confirmation of her successor. I-like you and other Americans of all political and judicial philosophies-recognize the importance of this nomination.

With the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings completed, I have decided to vote in favor of Judge Alito to serve as the 110th Justice of the United States Supreme Court. I came to this decision after careful consideration of his impeccable judicial credentials, the American Bar Association's strong recommendation, and his pledge that he would not bring a political agenda to the Court.

I understand your concerns regarding Judge Alito and his views on the judicial issues which will affect Americans for years to come. I believe the duty of judges is to adjudicate based on fact, law, and precedent without regard for personal ideology. I take Judge Alito at his word that he shares my view of the role of a Supreme Court Justice: that the role of judges is to balance the scales of justice, not to be activists and legislators.

Once again, thank you for contacting me. While we disagree on this particular nomination, I sincerely appreciated hearing your opinion and hope you will continue to share your views in the future.

Sincerely,

Ben Nelson

U.S. Senator

Well, we all know he's going to bring his (and Bush's) political agenda to the Court. That's why so many he was nominated and so many liberals and civil rights groups were against him. Get your abortions now, folks, you won't have the opportunity much longer.

Gonzales Knew
And, speaking of Bush, apparently Attorney General Gonzales may have known about the wiretaps when he testified in front of a Senate Judiciary Committee in January, 2005. I hope he is pressed on the issue. The Democrats don't seem to be showing much initiative to follow through with their threats recently.

Jim Jones up for Sainthood
I can't believe this is legitimate news. If any other religion proclaimed to have found a "miracle" that one of their religious leaders performed, it would be printed in the "wacky news." Let me rewrite this article and see what you think:

JONESTOWN (Jan. 30) - The People's Temple may have found the "miracle" they need to put the late Father Jim Jones one step closer to sainthood -- the medically inexplicable healing of a French "sister" with the same Parkinson's disease that afflicted him.

Brother Slawomir Oder, the People's Temple official in charge of promoting the cause to declare the late Father a saint of the Temple, told Reuters on Monday that an investigation into the healing had cleared an initial probe by doctors. Oder said the "relatively young" Sister, whom he said he could not identify for now, was inexplicably cured of Parkinson's after praying to Jones.

"I was moved," Oder said in a telephone interview. "To think that this was the same illness that destroyed the Holy Father and it also kept this poor Sister from carrying out her work."

Jim Jones suffered from Parkinson's Disease during the last decade of his life. His body trembled violently and he could not pronounce his words or control his facial muscles.

"To me, this is another sign of God's creativity," he said, adding that the Sister worked with children. He said Temple investigators would now start a more formal and detailed probe of the suspected miracle cure. The process that could lead to sainthood for Jones began in May when Jonestown archdiocese published an edict asking the Faithful to come forward with evidence "in favor or against" Jones' reputation of holiness. One proven miracle is required after Jones' death for the cause to lead to beatification. It must be the result of prayers asking the dead Father to intercede with God. Miracles are usually a physical healing that doctors are at a loss to explain. Another miracle would be necessary between beatification and eventual sainthood. Oder said his office had received many messages from Faithful around the world claiming that they had got what they wanted after having prayed to Jones after he died.

He said his office had also received many letters and e-mails from people claiming they had been miraculously cured or otherwise helped with a serious problem after praying to the Father even while he was alive. But under Temple rules, only those "miracles" which occurred after the Father's death can be investigated and eventually used as proof of holiness. The month after Jones died, Brother Benedict dispensed with Temple rules and put him on the fast track to sainthood. Benedict waived rules that impose a five-year waiting period after a candidate's death before the procedure that leads to sainthood can start. The quick start means Jones could be beatified and so declared a "blessed of the Temple" within a few years if a miracle can be attributed to his intercession with God. The crowds at Jones' funeral on April 8 chanted "Santo Subito" (Make him a saint now!).

Oder said he and other members of the investigating team were convinced that Jones "is already a saint" but he could not say how long the bureaucratic procedure could take. In past centuries, the saint-making procedure has often been long and expensive but many Faithful believe that Jones' life of suffering and service was clear to all. Many of the people who knew or worked with Jones are alive. This could speed up the case significantly because witnesses would be readily available to testify.

Ok, now THAT'S just creepy! But I think it illustrates my point. Written about the Pope, the article isn't anything special, but changed a little so that it makes you think about what it is actually saying, you see how ridiculous it all is. And, I hope they take into account all of the deaths from AIDS in Africa that can be directly linked to the Pope's prohibition of using condoms. Millions of people dead because of that one man. He may have murdered more people than anyone in history, including Hitler or Stalin. And yet Catholics want to beatify him. The sad thing is, Jim Jones is declared a monster because he convinced 900-some odd people to commit suicide quickly. However, John Paul convinced thousands or millions to commit suicide slowly and painfully, and he is considered worthy of sainthood. So long as I live, I will NEVER understand organized religion. In fact, when Li Hongzhi claimed that an elderly female follower began menstruating again, his claim was labeled "bizarre."
And, why is Showtime afraid of Scientology?

Not News Again
Again, this is not really news. Ted Koppel says that news agencies are more interested in profits than news. Well, duh. Most media outlets are owned by ten huge corporations. I think with the proliferation of the Internet, most 'zines have gone by the wayside. Once corporations figure out how to limit ownership of URL's online, the Internet will be limited to what is profitable and controlled by corporations also. Foreign governments already control a lot of what if published and viewed in those countries.

Muslims Hate Norwegians
Muslim attacks on Danes and Norwegians have intensified. This is a result of a Danish newspaper printing twelve cartoons of Mohammed. Images of the prophet are considered blasphemous by Muslims, but apparently violence against people is not. It's too bad there aren't any Vikings left. I'd like to see Ignar the Horrible row up in a Longboat and go berserk on their ass.

Do This, Don't Do That, Can't You Read the Signs?
The Patriot Act just keeps getting scarier and scarier. Back in the Day, you could protest whatever you wanted. If you got arrested, you typically stood to get fined or possibly spend the night in jail. Now, you could end up in federal prison for violating designated "secure areas," whether anyone of any importance is there or not. Who would do the arresting? Why the Department of Homeland Security's uniformed police force, of course. What, you've never heard of them? That's because it's another provision of the Patriot Act. I wrote about it a few days ago, but here is the link again. They would be

"empowered to make arrests without warrant for any offense against the United States committed in their presence, or for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing such felony."

Wow, that sounds bad.

Ok, let me run this down.

1) The Bush/Cheney administration has exercised broad, sometimes extreme, Executive powers under the reasoning that he is waging a "war on terror."
2) So far, but with a few delays, the Senate either endlessly debates minutiae or just ends up doing what the president wants.
3) With Alito's approval, the president may have a quorum on the Supreme Court, so that if he gets sued by and liberal wackos and it goes all the way to the Supreme Court, it gets squashed pretty quickly.
4) The president, though the DoHS, will be in charge of not only the military, which has restrictions on what they are allowed to do on US soil, but also a federal police force, which would have the power to make warrantless arrests of anyone for "any offense against the United States." (Again, I submit to you that the abbreviation for the Secret Service would be the "SS".)
One of the guys who introduced the Patriot Act even regrets it and admits that it gives the government too much power.

I suppose they would be deemed "enemy combatants" and held indefinitely without trial, as well. This just gets scarier and scarier. And, with all the conspiracy theories about 9/11, such as this (also refuted here), the world is a scary place to live in. As soon as I get paid, I'm joining the ACLU.

If It Doesn't Fit, You Must Acquit

Or, in this case, if you can't find any photographic proof of Bush with Abramoff, it never happened.

Something is (not) Rotten in Denmark
This is something I haven't heard anything about, and I consider myself fairly well-read. Apparently, the Muslim world has declared war on Denmark for 12 cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. This has been going on for months. Unfortunately, it has taken an economic turn in the Middle East, but I applaud the Danish government for stating they have no control over what is essentially a freedom of speech issue. This is a fundamental difference between Islam and the rest of the world: most Western countries have separation of Church and State, but that idea is so completely foreign to Muslims, they can't understand why the government wouldn't censure the media over a religious issue when asked. That is why societies that do not separate Church and State will never truly have any freedoms. That's why Hamas was elected to the Palestinian Parliament and why there will never, ever be peace in Israel unless they manage to become a secular society. I haven't yet found pictures of the cartoons online, but I'm still looking.

Bush Destroys New Orleans Again
Now the White House has "(withheld) support from a major Congressional reconstruction plan" for New Orleans. But, remember Bush's speech from New Orleans in September? He said, "Throughout the area hit by the hurricane, we will do what it takes. We will stay as long as it takes to help citizens rebuild their communities and their lives." Obviously it was a ploy to help boost his sagging approval rating. "Congress had cleared $60 billion of funds to be spent on the reconstruction effort, he said, and more would be forthcoming," but this January, 25th article states that Congress has only appropriated $6.2 billion, only 1/10th of what was earlier reported. Are we surprised? Sadly, no.

Dennis Rodman Signs One-Game Deal
"Rodman, who on Wednesday was evicted from the Celebrity Big Brother show, will face Guildford Heat at the Brighton Triangle on Saturday." I didn't know Dennis Rodman was on Celebrity Big Brother UK this season. George Galloway was, too, but both have been evicted. I would like to have seen those episodes.

The Gross Factor
Ok, this is just disgusting. This scorpion lived inside a plaster mold for 15 months and then crawled out when it was opened! The scientist had a clearer frame of mind than I would have had. I would have crushed the little booger.

Income Inequality
The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. That's not new news, but a couple of reports confirm it. Bush and his administration have unleashed an unrelenting and unapologetic attack on the middle and lower classes. It's almost comical how unbalanced his policies have been toward the wealthy. Until you view it from the bottom up, then it just becomes scary. At least the Republicans used to PRETEND that their policies were going to help the lower classes (remember how they tried to feed us Reaganomics? "If you make me richer, you'll eventually benefit from it because I'll buy more stuff and spend more money. You can manufacture my yacht, cook my food, clean my house, scrub my toilets, and park my car, mostly for minimum wage. See what a good economic policy this is?") I've been saying this for a while:

He also notes that when wealthier families see their incomes rise at a faster pace than everyone else, their spending can create what he calls an "expenditure cascade." That is, the demand for bigger and better homes or safer cars can create new standards for those lower down on the economic scale.
But since their incomes aren't growing as fast, they have a hard time keeping up, leading to what Frank calls "welfare loss." For example, as home prices rise, it becomes harder to afford a home in a neighborhood with good public schools.

A home isn't the only thing. What about when your son or daughter wants a new iPod ($300) and you make $7.00 an hour and barely pay for groceries? What about a new computer ($400-$1,200) to download songs, play PC games, burn DVDs, chat online, etc., like the wealthier kids get to do. What about the new iPod jeans all the kids will be wearing ($200)? What about the new Air Force Ones ($80+)? What about when all TV's become digital and everyone has to spend hundreds of dollars replacing their television sets? Most premium cable channels aren't available on regular cable any more. It's considered "low class" to even have regular cable. It's posh to have "digital cable" now, and a lot of channels aren't available unless you have digital cable, but that'll cost ya double or more what basic cable costs. Internet access is almost a basic necessity now, but access via a cable modem will cost ya $45/month. Besides, you can't have dial-up if you have no home phone. Not only are working-class citizens unable to keep up with the vacations, cars, and restaurants that upper-class people enjoy, "basic" things become not-so basic. Upper class kids who enjoy game-boys, lap-tops, iPods, PSPs, in-car DVD players, PS3's, X-box 360, "multi-media" PC's, digital surround sound and remote-everything can't comprehend children of working class parents who can't afford all the creature comforts they do. Just take cars. Luxury cars have navigational systems, heated seats, cruise control, MP3 players, surround sound, tilting headlights and all sorts of James-Bond type shit that "hoopties" don't have. I know people that have never ridden in a car that has airbags. Or cruise control. Or air conditioning. When the gap between rich and poor keeps widening, "basics" like air conditioning become luxuries when you live paycheck to paycheck. Why do you think dozens of elderly die each year because of heat? They can't afford air conditioning that Sam and Suzie Suburb enjoy normally. And, if more low-income houses and apartments were fitted with 1) wind- or solar-power and 2) better insulation, we could not only reduce costs for everyone (utility costs mainly), provide better living conditions for the elderly and infant poor, reduce the strain on public money by our poorest citizens, and help reduce our need for fossil fuels. All houses on fuel assistance and all now houses need to be mandated that they have solar panels.