More nukes in the middle east?

Oboy. Now it looks like Egypt has a secret nuclear weapons program thanks to help from Pakistan.

Reckon ol' Dubya will rattle his sabers at Egypt, too? Pretty soon, Iraq will be the only middle east country WITHOUT a nuclear weapons program. (But we'll make up for it by putting permanent U.S. military bases near the oil fields.)

I don't think all Muslims are jihadists, just like I don't think all Christians are crusaders. But it only takes a few rowdy knuckleheads to embroil us all in a war.

And we've already got ours in power...

Wealth gap just keeps widening. Plus, record oil profits!

It’s funny how two independent stories published at the same time can bounce off each other.

Wage increases (2.5% over the past year) are at an all-time low while inflation continues to rise (3.3% over the past year). But even that’s misleading. The average is skewed because most of the wages being increased are at the top end. For folks under $21K per year, wages increased only 1.7%.

And the biggest reason wages have increased is actually in medical coverage (because of skyrocketing medical costs). So the difference between inflation and take-home pay is significantly greater.

On the flip side, Shell oil is expecting a historical record profit of almost $18 billion this year.

I wonder how proud this makes our soldiers over in Iraq...?

If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

Maybe this story rubs me the wrong way because I approve of paddling in schools. Sure, there’s a grey area when a student passes age 18 regarding who can give consent, the parents or the student.

But the claims about the paddling itself sound suspicious. Her complaint sounds like she wants us to believe she was forcibly held down and beaten. But reading between the lines, I see a different story. While she was getting her “three or four whacks” she stuck her hand in the way. The hand got hit, and she went to the hospital and her hand was put in a cast.

I say she learned two lessons. One, don’t be skipping school to get breakfast. (Here’s a pointer, buy your food before school starts, eh?) And two, don’t be putting your hands where they don’t belong.

It’s her own stupid fault for putting her hand back there. Trust me, I'm an expert on getting whippings. I’ve walked away from a whipping many times with hurt hands. You either take the pain on the butt, or you can try to deflect it which transfers the pain to your hand. But don’t whine after you make that decision!

The whole lawsuit is based on her being an adult. Well, age doesn’t mean maturity, because she’s obviously not adult enough to take responsibility for her own actions.

Nay-sayers for hire.

Shock, shock. Big oil is funding the "science" that says nuh-uh to global warming science. Recent research is warning that greenhouse gases (industrial pollution such as from automobiles) may even be a worse threat than previously thought. And the previous thoughts were pretty scary to begin with.

This reminds me of all those years of "scientists" saying there was no connection between smoking and lung cancer.

I guess we'll have to have another round of "frivolous" lawsuits to get the truth out on this one, too.

Gay genes?

I hate onions and tomatoes and I cannot explain why. I have tried to ignore my anti-onion-and-tomato inclinations and eat them without prejudice. But every attempt has lead to revulsion.

Oh, it would make my life SO much easier to like them. No more fussing over menu items or making (usually disregarded) special requests. I could finally be fully included in the culture, and able to eat whatever everyone else is eating. (Some may not realize it, but food preference can be just as divisive as one's religious and political beliefs. It's not easy living outside the mainstream.)

If I can't choose to like onions or tomatoes, I'm pretty certain gay folks don't choose to be gay.

Sure, they can choose what actions they take, but they can't simply choose to not be gay. That's impossible, even though it would DEFINITELY make their lives better in all aspects if they simply were heterosexual. There was no day in my life where I weighed my food options and chose my deviant anti-onion-and-tomato tastes. That's just who I am, and have always been.

Nor did I wake up one day and decide to be a heterosexual. That's just who I am, and have always been. And now, scientists are finding a genetics link to male sexual orientation.

This research isn't finished. There's no one single "gay gene" that's passed on. But there is some early data that suggests there is more to sexual orientation than simple perversion.

They coulda just asked me, and saved a lot of research. But you know these scientist types, they always gotta have numbers to crunch.

Phone calls spur political furor over social security

This is to be expected. The GOP has been using sneaky tactics to scare people into opposing the Democrats for three decades now, with great success, and with total impunity. So... it looks like the Dems (or some of them) may have decided to fight fire with fire. If it was the Dems, it's about time.

Someone (probably a pro-Dem agent) made anonymous phone calls to constituents of several Republican districts warning that the GOP intends to privatize social security. This lead to a flood of phone calls to Washington and now certain congresspersons are worried it could cost them the next election. Good move, Democrats. If the GOP can win on gay marriage, the Dems can win on social security.

My favorite quote from the story is "The dirty tricks have begun." Oh yeah, like the GOP hasn't been calling people to lie about the Democrats and liberals for 30 years! At least THIS scare is actually TRUE. There have been Republicans who have openly expressed interest in privatization for years. Others want it gone completely. Bush's current plan of allowing investments from social security funds isn't fully privatization, but it's a definite first step to either that or breaking the program entirely.

Yet another propagandist exposed

A third "journalist" has been exposed for accepting Bush administration payoffs to write praise for Bush initiatives. Note the culprit's column title...

According to Salon.com, "Michael McManus, a marriage advocate whose syndicated column, "Ethics & Religion," appears in 50 newspapers, was hired as a subcontractor by the Department of Health and Human Services to foster a Bush-approved marriage initiative. McManus championed the plan in his columns without disclosing to readers he was being paid to help it succeed."

Is this man a servant of G-O-D, or just the G-O-P?

Democrats lay down for Rice.

It's now almost too difficult to argue that the Democrats are any longer an "opposition party."

It was a given that every Republican Senator would vote to confirm Condoleeza Rice as Secretary of State (no individual thought is tolerated in Bush's GOP). But the Democrats, too?

Only 13 Democrats saw enough reason to say Rice was not right for the job. Rice. The woman who lied, distorted, exaggerated, mislead, and hoodwinked America into believing Saddam had weapons he didn't have, was a threat to people he wasn't a threat to, and was tied to terrorists he wasn't tied to.

If you can't trust someone to ever tell the truth, how can they ever be appropriate for a cabinet post?

I thought it funny how so many senators praised Rice for her qualifications, because so far she's never needed them.

Thanks, Dems, for giving your stamp of approval on the last four years of lies and distortions.

Another hired propagandist exposed

A second "journalist" who took pay-for-praise money from the Bush administration money has been uncovered.

Syndicated columnist Maggie Gallagher was paid $21,500 by the Department of Health and Human Services to promote a $300 Bush pro-marriage initiative.

It should be scandalous enough that Bush wanted to waste that much money to tell people marriage is good for "strengthening families." Duh. Next he'll want to spend more millions telling everyone the wisdom of getting a good night's sleep. (Message to George: just because the idea just occured to you doesn't mean the rest of us don't know already.) But I digress...

It's really sad when you control all branches of government and have virtually all of the major media rolling over for you and you STILL have to hire goons to say good things about your baloney policies.

GonzalesSaddamGonzalesHitlerGonzales...?

Are there six apples, or just half a dozen?

Is it torture, or is it just "cruel, inhuman or degrading" treatment?

If you ask Gonzales, there's a difference. I bet if you asked Saddam Hussein, you'd get the exact same answer. See, all those people who suffered under his regime weren't "tortured," they were just pleasantly enjoying "cruel, inhuman or degrading" treatment...

Isn't Gonzales the one who argued it's not torture if you do it for information and not for pleasure? Lets hope this isn't the retarded argument that lets Saddam off the hook.


ADDENDUM:
Here's an interesting comparison between Bush rhetoric and Nazi rhetoric, including how both the Nazis and Gonzales refer to the Geneval conventions as "obsolete."

Dems don't hold back; call Rice a liar

It looks like some of the Democrats have found their testicles. Thanks, folks, you're only three years too late.

Several Democratic senators took Condoleeza Rice to task for her gross distortions of the "evidence" and outright propagandizing against Iraq during Bush's salivating rush to war. Mark Dayton of Minnesota went so far as to use the "lie" word, which is usually only used in euphamisms like "disengenuous."

It's about time the Democrats started calling those Republican LIARS a bunch of LIARS.

There's no point in pussy-footing anymore.

Ted Turner tells it like it is.

I always liked Ted Turner. He seldom played it safe, and always spoke his mind.

Here's what he thinks about Fox News.

(And he's right. Seig Heil!)

O'Reilly thinks his listeners are complete morons

O'Reilly recently said "Hitler would be a card-carrying ACLU member. So would Stalin. Castro probably is. And so would Mao Zedong." He also called the ACLU a "fascist organization" and "the most dangerous organization in the United States of America right now ... second next to Al Qaeda."

Let's see...the one group guaranteed to stand up for civil liberties--regardless of how controversial the issue might be--is the most dangerous organization to the U.S. THAT tells you what O'Reilly really believes in. He truly believes America stands for an oppressive state power that trumps individual rights. He hates Americans having rights that can't be taken away. Because these rights are the one thing that keeps the true Republican agenda at bay.

Why do Republicans keep letting these right-wing pundits talk to them like they're morons? Anyone with a simple high school diploma has been taught what fascism and communism was like under Hitler, Stalin, Castro and Mao. Fighting for civil liberties was NOT part of their agenda.

Unless his listeners truly are as ignorant as he treats them, O'Reilly will soon ratchet up his rhetoric to the point where even a dullard will know what a liar O'Reilly is.

The issue at hand is a Dover, PA school district's plan to insert intelligent design "theory" into the school's biology curriculum. If you don't know what intelligent design theory is, well, first it's not a theory at all. It's theology. It simply suggests that since nature has a system, that system had to be created. It's Creationism with a different name. It is not a scientific idea, it's a philosophical/theological one. How can you tell the difference? Because science is an academic discipline based on what is quantifiable. If you cannot observe and test it, then it's not science. Science is about the natural; intelligent design is about the supernatural.

Keep in mind, the IDT people are trying to offer their concept as an ALTERNATIVE to evolution (which IS a scientific theory because it is based on quantifiable facts). Where the IDT preachers are misguided is that evolution theory and the story of Genesis are not mutually exclusive. Even the Bible says the universe was developed over time (six days), not magically appearing in the blink of an eye. The theory of evolution is the scientific exploration of that development based on the empirical record found in nature. It's entirely possible that evolution is the method God used to create the universe. So even if you believe in IDT, it does not displace the science of evolution.

But this isn't about science at all. It's just a new-fangled attempt by the religious right to impose their religious views into the schools. Thankfully, the First Amendment blocks that from happening. And that's what O'Reilly and his ilk really hates. The ACLU defends Americans' civil rights, such as the First Amendment. And the GOP will never completely take over the country so long as those pesky civil liberties keep being protected.

If you want to know what the REAL threat to America is, it's Rupert Murdock and his GOP propaganda machine that O'Reilly serves like a good little stooge. Murdock's agenda is to destroy any semblance of fact or truth in the "news," because facts and truth have been holding back the GOP's bid to turn the world over to corporate rule. This is what Bush's "ownership society" is really about: only the owners matter. And thanks to deregulation, the mega-corporations will eventually own everything.

This all ties together. O'Reilly is just a dishonest mouthpiece for that agenda. I hope his listeners eventually prove him wrong, and prove they're not the morons he thinks they are.

New boss same as the old boss?

Now try telling the Iraqi people that we are bringing them the joyful peace and harmony of representative democracy.

A U.S. official has confirmed that Iraq's current interim prime minister Iyad Allawi personally shot and killed six suspected insurgents. He shot seven in all, but one survived.

No indictment, no trial, no verdict, and definitely no appeal.

And this is different from Saddam...how?

Hawkeye's new role in M.A.S.H.--spin doctor.

I realize soldiers are trained to not think independently. They are expected to be empty vessels by which the government exerts its will (by force) over other people. But there's still something disturbing about demanding soldiers to be the gov't's public relations persons as well.

A new part of soldiers' training is how to handle the media. They are routinely given note cards with "talking points" on them, with phrases such as "we are committed" and "moving forward" (the empty B.S. political-speak meaning, not the literal meaning of physically moving to a position in front of you). Here's my favorite: "we are not an occupying force." This from an army that is, how shall I say, OCCUPYING another country.

Read the whole Editor & Publisher exclusive article for the nonsensical gov't argument that these talking points are not instructions for soldiers to lie. Putting a "positive spin" on a military situation isn't exactly being honest. It's marketing.

Social Security: Bush creates a false crisis so he can create a real crisis...

Bush had a lovely town hall style forum this week on social security. Of course, as is everything in Bushworld, the forum was staged and everybody pre-screened complete with perfectly written questions and responses straight out of Karl Rove's pen. ("Real" forums under the GOP is like "reality" TV: it's all scripted and acted out.)

Bush wants you to believe that Social Security is on the verge of collapse. This doomsday talk is to get you scared enough to accept his "fix" for it. But is Social Security in a crisis? Or is Bush selling a bogus crisis (like Iraq) so he can create a real crisis?

First, is Social Security on the brink of ruin? Not according the the Congressional Budget Office, the non-partisan group whose calculations are not challenged. It's the closest thing to a reliable source of number-crunching in our whole government.

The CBO says that if Social Security is NOT TOUCHED, it will continue to make FULL payments to everybody all the way till 2052. And even after that, SS will still be paying out more than they do today.

Keep in mind, the whole notion of a SS problem was because the Baby Boomers were supposed to drain it dry. But as CBO tells us, SS will be able to pay them just fine.

But for some reason, Bush and the GOP insist we must "fix" it now before it's too late. Too late for what? Too late for sharks on Wall Street to cash-in big time off of broker's fees and indiscriminate (i.e. unwise) investing. The Dow would shoot back up past 5000 and they'd be living the high life again, just like the 1990s. And we saw what happened when THAT bubble burst. Lots of regular people who invested their savings went broke. But did any of the rich folks, traders, and bankers go broke? No. You can tell because nobody was jumping out of windows like 1929.

Second, even though there is no real crisis would Bush's plan actually help anyone? Well, it would help the aforementioned professional money people. And it would help a very few regular folks who got lucky and struck it rich. But the vast majority of people would end up on the short end. Once the young people take out billions from the system, THEN you'll see a severe crisis. The program will immediately have to resolve inadequate funding issues. People will start suffering immediately.

This discussion cannot continue without some frank honesty. Investing is just high-class gambling. When you buy stocks, you are gambling that their value will go up instead of down. Everybody crunches the numbers, but nobody knows with any certainty. The only sure winners are the brokers and the boards of the companies invested in. (Even if the company collapses later, those in the board room get fat bonuses when stock values go up.)

It is also true that most Americans don't know squat about Wall Street. They're suckers ripe for the picking. I know working folks who invested their savings in the 1990s because they were sold a bill of goods that they were assured to make more money in stocks than they were in savings interest. Every single one of them lost at least half their investment. Now, they're at retirement age and suffering from the vicissitudes of the market. They need Social Security now more than they ever thought they would.

THIS is what Bush's plan will bring. Bush will CAUSE a crisis that would not otherwise have existed.

Why would he do this? Because it is a basic Republican belief that the government should never pay out money directly to people. It should have to filter its way down through any number of corporations first. Bush's SS plan is a new nuance to "trickle down economics."

UPDATE: For Paul Krugman's explanation of this hoax, look here.

Watchdog group goes sniffing for more of Bush's PR turds

The Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington group has filed Freedom of Information Act requests with 23 federal agencies to find out who else the Bush administration has been bribing to spread propaganda favoring Bush policies.

If Bush did it once, he might have done it a hundred times. We now must ask just to what extent this corruption is spread. As it turns out, this isn't a precedent.

As referenced to in the CREW press release, "Previously, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) criticized the Department of Health and Human Services for having Ketchum create fake news footage in support of the new Medicare Bill. GAO is also investigating another contract between Ketchum and DOE and a contract between the Office of National Drug Control Policy and Fleischman-Hillard."

Fake news praising the GOP? It's funny the GAO felt they needed look any further than FoxNews and right-wing radio.

What's this--accountability? 'Liberal elite' media rolls heads.

Journalistic standards...the concept has become a laughingstock in this era of FoxNews and right-wing radio. But what about the so-called “liberal elite” media? What are their standards?

(Caveat: I don’t know what the “liberal elite” media is supposed to be. I’ve never found the mainstream TV or print outlets to be very liberal, at least not politically. This is worsened by the FoxNews/RW-radio approach of using the phrase regularly to refer to some unspecified “them” that’s out there somewhere...)

If CBS is the “liberal elite” media, then they just showed that the “liberal elite” media is, standards-wise, miles above the partisan dreck of certain cable outlets (hello Fox, Rush, Hannity, O’Reilly, et al).

CBS just fired four employees who worked on the Killian Memo story for 60 Minutes Wednesday, based on an independent investigation’s findings. Add that to Dan Rather’s stepping down as anchor and you get five heads rolled...

...for a story where nothing has yet been proven wrong!

That’s right. The investigation (lead by two people who have no interest in making CBS look good: former CEO of the Associate Press Louis Boccardi and former GOP Attorney General Dick Thornburgh) also found that there is no proof that the Killian Memo is a fraud. They simply could not prove it either way. So as it stands, five heads may have rolled over a true story.

I wonder how many heads rolled at FoxNews and MSNBC for all that Swift Boats Vets baloney? NONE of that stuff was verified, and ALL of it was proven FALSE. It was definitely rushed onto the airwaves 24/7 without being vetted.

Heads? Resignations? Apologies? Rush? O’Reilly? Matthews?

Of course not. For the most part, they did what they intended to do: smear Kerry under the pretense of covering a “story”. Journalistic standards didn’t mean squat.

Some will argue that the report is wrong in its conclusion that CBS is guilty of being over-zealous but not of political bias. Well, that's not what matters anyway. What matters is that the FACTS of the story are as likely true as false.


SIDEBAR: One source
in the Killian Memo story adamantly argues that the independent report is so full of lies and inaccuracies that he goes in depth to clear up his name and the facts. He makes some very compelling arguments.

Clearly, they're not thinking ahead.

A USAToday poll shows that 54% of "young people" prefer Bush's plan to allow them to invest their social security money into private accounts.

But they also think "reality TV" isn't scripted.

I weep for the future, because it's in the hands of people who have no concept of the past. The Social Security Act was created BECAUSE of money lost on Wall Street due to the stock market crash of 1929. Millions lost their entire life savings when stocks collapsed and banks went broke. President F.D. Roosevelt created the SSA as insurance against another failure. It was a deal between the worker and his government that x-number of dollars would be there when they got old--no matter how the stock market turned out.

Now, that will be undone. These young people are being lured in by the lottery-style false hopes of Wall Street jackpots. Sorry, kids, but the people winning on this deal WON'T be YOU. It will be the brokers who rake in billions in fees, and the expert traders who know what they're doing.

(Go read up about the Dot.Com bust a few years back. Millions were invested into internet start-ups that flopped almost overnight. Where'd all those invested millions go? Into the private bank accounts of the "CEO"s who got stinking rich off companies that never made a dime in profits! The investors lost their silk shirts; the "failed" owners got new Ferraris. TAKE THE HINT!)

What's irritating is KNOWING that when these youngsters get old and their money is long lost to bad investments, they will STILL come crawling to the government to bail them out. And either they'll be turned away to fend for themselves, or they will get checks at the expense of those who were smart enough not to gamble--because all those added people will reduce benefits for everyone.

Screw ethics, the GOP is in charge!

Last week, the GOP rewrote a bunch of House rules. Of particular note besides the previous entry, the GOP has changed ethics committee rules so that now it requires a yea vote from BOTH parties to launch an investigation. Under the Democrats' rules, a majority or a deadlocked tie would result in an investigation. That kept party loyalists from blocking ethical oversight.

But not with the GOP in charge. Now, a Republican will have to break ranks to start an investigation. And the GOP is not hiding the fact that they're purging any Republicans who might refuse to walk lock-step with der party.

What's this mean? No ethics investigations against Republicans PERIOD.

Sure, this works both ways. But it's a cheap concession, given that no Democrat has any power anymore anyway. And the GOP always has FoxNews and right-wing radio to slime any Democrat they want, so the damage can be done with or without any official investigations. And besides, there's always a chance a Democrat will turn on another Democrat. (Liberals tend to be a bit too independent for their own good sometimes.)

GOP sets up future takeover of gov't

Want more proof of GOP contempt for the U.S. Constitution?

This week the Republicans have passed a de facto rewriting of the Constitution, completely without fanfare or critique by the major media.

The new law overrides the Constitutional provision that a majority of the House of Representatives must be present to have a quorum (minimum number required to pass laws). Now, just a majority of whoever shows up is required.

The new law says this provision is for times of "catastrophic circumstances." This might comfort the numbskulls--those who unquestioningly believe anything Bush says--but to the THINKING people in this country, this provision is a warning siren.

I'm now on watch for a major snowstorm (or any other "natural disaster, attack, contagion or similar calamity rendering Representatives incapable of attending the proceedings of the House") where Congress members will be stuck out of town and only a dozen or so (conveniently Republicans) can show up for an emergency meeting.

Just as the NeoCons said in their online Mein Kampf (aka Project for a New American Century), a crisis is needed to get their agenda past the checks and balances of the Constitution. (It doesn't have to be illegal; a terrified media and cowardly opposition is just as good.) The terrorist attacks of 2001 were that crisis. And this bill is a big help to getting even more checks and balances removed.

Talk about wasting tax dollars...

Remember when the Republicans whined incessantly about Bill Clinton's alledged 200 dollar haircut? Never overestimate the GOP's ability to be unabashed hypocrites.

This year's coronation of juvenile-king Bush will cost about $50 million from the U.S. Treasury!

We can't pay for health care, or troops' body armor, or even training for election officials, but we can afford to blow 1/20th of a billion dollars to anoint a fraudulent "president" with a 3% "mandate.

The truth is right there in front of your eyes. The Republicans most definitely DO believe in big gov't spending--just not for anyone but themselves.

GOP silence on Gonzales is another flip-flop.

I understand that Bush would want as his Attorney General a tyrannical torturer who equates the Constitution with toilet paper. Bush himself has wiped his ass on that document a time or two. It’s nothing new.

But why do regular folks put up with it?

There’s no way to spin the anti-American attitude of Bush this time around. Our whole Bill of Rights was designed to PREVENT what Gonzales says is good for government to do. There is no person’s views more diametrically opposed to civil rights, civil liberties, freedom, and Christian morals than those of Gonzales.

Yet here we are on the cusp of this abomination of a human being being hired as the nation’s chief law enforcer. This guy’s a half-step shy of the Marquis de Saad, for cryin’ out loud. Anybody who writes memos explaining how to spin torture as legal, or says the Geneva Conventions are “quaint” and outdated, is someone who puts oppressive government ahead of peoples’ rights.

Didn’t the Republicans cry like Hell about Janet Reno? How can any intelligent person say Ruby Ridge or Waco is a greater violation of our Constitution than Guantanamo Bay or Abu Ghraib?

Where is their outrage now?

Mute. Because they don't dare question their masters.

How to polish a turd.

One thing you can always count on... every day there’s a new corruption scandal by the GOP.

This time, the Education Department has been caught bribing an established conservative media personality, Armstrong Williams, to give extensive favorable coverage for the No Child Left Behind Act. Williams received $240,000 of your tax money to be Bush’s marketing whore.

Obviously, the Bush administration did not believe his own program could stand on its own merits. That tells you what a piece of crap NCLB actually is. (I know teachers; NCLB is worthless.)

Even Williams admitted that criticism of the deal was “legitimate.” (Thanks, pal, for having a revelation AFTER you’ve cashed your check. Typical Republican. They sell out, then feign guilt--but keep the money. And the damage is already done.)

It’s no wonder the Bush administration loves the fake news broadcast by FoxNews and right wing radio. This banana republic wouldn’t last six months in a country with REAL news coverage.

American democracy, R.I.P. 1789-2000

It was a nice experiment while it lasted.

But the past two presidential elections have been PROVEN to be fraudulent. Voters were suppressed or denied, votes were ignored or miscounted, and machines were improperly placed and programmed. And everything done in secret.

If you have entire counties where more votes are cast than voters registered to cast them, then those results are INVALID. That alone should have this election elevated to a full scandal in the media and even the GOP supporters. But no.

If this is now the acceptable standard of holding elections, then democracy is dead. All that's left is a shell, an empty word, and a whole lot of corruption.

More GOP hypocricy...

After a year of pandering to religious groups by condemning homosexuality and gay lifestyles, particularly same sex marriages, the GOP has tossed out its own rule limiting the term of committee chairmanships and has decided to let Rep. David Dreier stay as chairman of the House Rules Committee for two more years.

The kicker is... Dreier is an outed homosexual.

After all their "values" rhetoric about gays destroying our civilization, and all their fuss over a proposed federal amendment institutionalizing gays as second class citizens, the Republicans turn a 180 and affirm that Dreier is "moral enough" and "American enough" to run the Rules Committee in Congress.

Keep in mind, it's the Rules Committee that handles amendments to the Constitution!

So, will the Jerry Falwells at the church pulpits turn their fire and brimstone jeramiads upon the two-faced Republicans for now accepting and rewarding homosexuals? Hasn't that been their basis for demonizing liberals, for their toleration? I doubt the Falwells will miss a beat. They're in too deep with the GOP now. So much so, that many churches are now little more than Political Action Committees--agencies serving a political party, and not agencies of God or Christianity.

What's so pathetic is that any time a Republican is about to suffer a disadvantage from his/her conservative rhetoric, he/she turns liberal in a heartbeat. Such is their true character. Such is their hypocricy.

John Kerry disgusts me.

On Thursday, the Congress votes to accept or reject the "official" electoral votes from the states. There is an opportunity for members of the House and Senate to step up and say the election--particularly Ohio--was erroneous and/or fraudulent.

Guess who sent an email saying he WON'T join any contest.

And his reason makes me SICK.

(From John Kerry's email, caps are mine:) "Tomorrow, members of Congress will meet to certify the results of the 2004 presidential election. I WILL NOT be taking part in a formal protest of the Ohio Electors.

"Despite widespread reports of irregularities, questionable practices by some election officials and instances of lawful voters being denied the right to vote, our legal teams on the ground have found NO EVIDENCE THAT WOULD CHANGE THE OUTCOME of the election."

In other words: since he won't win, he won't play.

Well, Mr. Kerry, this isn't about YOU. It's about the Democratic process. It's about exposing and fighting corruption. And most importantly, it IS about you standing up for all those millions who campaigned and voted for you--because they thought your election was CRITICAL to the future of America. We stood up for you, and now you let us down.

You're done, Mr. Kerry. You don't have a snowball's chance in hell of ever getting the Democratic nomination again.

Not you, nor any of the other Congressional Democrats who will sit on their hands Thursday, hoping to protect their jobs instead of protecting democracy.

O-peration I-raqi L-iberation

If there's any of you who still believe Bush's invasion of Iraq was about "freedom," the Christian Science Monitor illustrates precisely what is being "freed."

"...Iraq has taken the first step to open its reserves to the world."

"...is inviting foreign oil companies to develop potential fields. "

"...fulfill what some see as a key goal of the Bush administration - ensuring another reliable oil-rich partner in the Middle East beyond Saudi Arabia."

OOPS! Wasn't this all about freeing "the Iraqi people"? Nope. It was about freeing American oil corporations to profit from Iraqi oil. (They were held back by those pesky sanctions.)

"The government wants to "make things easy" for foreign investment... Iraq has taken steps toward a market economy where the private sector and foreign investors will play a big role in the economy.""

You can guess who the "foreign investors" will be: bloated energy corporations with hand-in-pocket ties to "coalition" governments, particularly the U.S. and Britain.

ALL PAID FOR by you and me.

The cost of the war is going up another $100 billion. Weren't we promised that the war would be paid for by Iraqi oil profits? Not a chance. Those profits are now American corporation profits--who likely won't pay a penny in federal taxes.

War is just another way of taking money from the working class and giving it to the wealthy class. And in this case, we get the privilege of dying for our efforts.

Republicans furious over member's honesty

Republicans are furious that Washington Secretary of State Sam Reed did not abuse his power as overseer of the election to assure a Republican victory in that state's gubernatorial race.

Quoted by the Seattle Times, Reed said: "There are people who think I should be using the position of secretary of state simply to weigh the scales on the side of my own party. I just don't accept that, and it would not be proper."

Also: "There are some people who have been dismayed that I wasn't a Katherine Harris who took the position, 'I'm a Republican, and by God that comes first.' "

Reed is alluding to the 2000 election in Florida where Harris exploited the public trust to assure Bush a victory through various (many illegal) disenfranchisement schemes.

What is telling from Reed's case is that he is being ostracized for "not being Republican enough." That's a good indicator of where the Republican Party is ethically these days. Proving party loyalty by going the extra(legal) mile is a basic requirement.

Extreme party loyalty was a staple mindset of hardcore communists under the Soviet Union.