Jeffthinks

Losing Their Souls Part Two

2005-03-24T19:07:00.000-05:00

When I was young, I was told, taught, heard four things about Republicans. First, that they were rich. Second, that they looked out only for the rich and were strictly for fiscal responsibilty. Third, that they believed in small government that needed to be run like a business. Fourth, that they believed that whatever government there was (preferably "states rights") should stay out of people's lives as much as possible.

My education and experience with Republicans confirmed most of these early understandings.

During the Vietnam war, I even thought that perhaps I aligned more with the Republicans than the Democrats just simply because of the fourth premise. The door for my switching alliances opened with my dislike for L.B.J. That began when I was 11 and John Kennedy was killed. You see, Lyndon Johnson simply wasn't J.F.K., so I disliked him immediately. But soon, my negative feelings toward the man were enhanced when during the 1964 Democratic convention, Robert Kennedy, my new hero received that seemingly never-ending ovation and Johnson looked pissed during the cutaway shots of him. The real knife in Johnson's back was, however, the war. It was HIS war and I hated him for it!

Still, what were the other choices?

I kind of liked Nelson Rockefeller, though I didn't know much about his real politics. And then there was Nixon. Something told me that in spite of loathing Johnson, that given a chance, I could grow to loathe him even more. My intuition was correct.

It was George McGovern who pretty much totally converted me to a life of proudly proclaiming myself as a Democrat.

Still... that idea of keeping government OUT of my life seemed like at least a rather noble one. Privacy has always been a key issue with me.

And so, while I kept Republicans at a distance, there at least seemed to be some redeeming quality to them. All that changed in 1980.

It was with the entrance to the big national political spotlight of Ronald Reagan that the Republican party began to change. You see, after Watergate and the defeat of Gerry Ford, the Republicans panicked. They believed themselves to be on the brink of not only losing control of the White House and Congress, but possibly sinking into political oblivion as well. Many within the party firmly believed that in order to survive, they needed to develop a new voter base, not just the wealthy upper-class, but a kicker (if you will). They searched and they researched, they polled and repolled until they finally found their only opening, their only hope. The always disenfranchised religious right!

You see, the RR had never found a home in politics. The Dems didn't court them because they were out of step with the more liberal agenda. The Reps didn't court them because of the clearly defined separation of church and state. Besides, for the Republicans, those elitists of money and higher education, the RR were... far too common. To put it plainly, the two were totally incompatible.

But desperate times call for desperate measures. They were sitting there, ripe for the picking and the Reps needed something to help put them back into the game. Of course, the irony is... they sold their souls to the devil for the return to power.

Slowly, but surely, the RR began to demand their pound of flesh in return for delivering those precious "follow like sheep" votes. More and more, their religious beliefs worked thier way into the Republican party politique. The result is that the fourth clear cut understanding about the heritage of the Republican party wanting to stay out of people's lives evaporated.

Sure, the hard core traditionalist would argue that the Reps still believe in the concept... as in, less governmental hand-outs and bureaucracy, but what good is that bigger picture when at the same time they begin trying to legislate morality? Who cares about smaller government, if that smaller government wants to control what goes on in your bedroom? Who cares about the bigger picture when that smaller government wants to monitor and restrict your most private intimate choices and actions?

So now, here they are stuck. Like the little boy who wanted a little brother, only to later discover that the little brother is now twice his own size. Perhaps a better analogy would be be the traditional Republican as the chimpanzee trying to hide a gorilla by sitting on the gorilla's head.

And while I'm in the mood for a little Republican bashing, don't think that I've forgotten for a moment that it was the same Ronald Reagan who SWORE in the 1980 election that he would balance the federal budget (in traditional Republican style) and then turned around and quadrupled it, mainly over his Communistic phobia and a silly, misconceived notion about a "star wars" program.

Yes, the Republicans have totally lost their heritage... their soul. Personally, I'm just waiting for the day that the truly satanic religious right grabs the collar of the Rep party and pulls them down into the firey hell that so deservingly awaits them. The time will come, my friends, trust me on this one.

Losing Their Souls Part One

2005-03-22T21:26:00.000-05:00

The Terri Schiavo case. Another media event, non-event.

It's not unlike the night that ONE jerk in Des Moines, Iowa slipped a razor blade into an apple and dropped it into some kids bag on a slow news day. The result was that it got huge national attention and suddenly all of your neighbors were suspected of doing it too, thereby ruining the yearly anticipated ritual of "trick or treat" for millions of kids.

The Schiavo case is one in several THOUSAND such cases that happen all over this country annually. The only difference is that her parents knew who to turn to for attention, anti-abortion activists and the press.

But wait. Even the anti-abortionists, when forced into a corner, apparently disagree with the idea of keeping a vegatative human being alive for the sake of... ???? In a recent poll, over 90% of all Americans said that they would not want to live on in such a state. 82% of respondents who identified themselves as "fundamentalists" said that they too would NOT want to be kept alive under those conditions.

And then there is the White House and the Republicans... the debt-laden Republicans.

By taking a stand against cutting off Schiavo's feeding tube, they can pay back part of that huge debt that they owe the fanatical religious right. "See we kept our word," they'll say, "we're with you."

Personally, they could give a shit whether or not Schiavo dies or not. Frankly, there's little doubt that Congressional Republicans are praying for a ruling from a Clinton-appointed federal judge to blame the whole things on those liberal Democrats.

One needs only to look at Bush's record in Texas to see that he SIGNED a Republican-sponsored legislative bill into effect that allowed the state to remove feeding tubes! So has George found religion since stepping into 1600? I don't think so. What he's found is more politics.

It's all a part of the Republican party losing what little soul and legitimacy it had for ever existing with any influence in the first place.

Once Again, The Answer Is Greed

2005-03-19T19:11:00.000-05:00

It's "America's Favorite Pastime." Major League Baseball.

By the time that I was eight years old, I knew enough about it to root for the Pittburgh Pirates against those damned Yankees in the 1960 World Series and went on to become a Pirates/Steelers fan for life as a result of that great upset.

Still, I know now that I grew up in the transistion era. I believe that it was in 1966 that Curt Flood of the St. Louis Cardinals challenged the owners unquestionable rights to "own" a player for the life of their careers. He won his case and free agency followed.

Now, I don't fault Flood for doing what he did or the courts for overturning the old ways. After all, team ownership could make a player's career a living hell if there was a run-in somewhere and often there was. But after the case was decided in favor of the players, the "Flood gates" (sorry) opened quickly and the bidding began on a new style of baseball... out and out full-blown greed.

It wasn't that the owners of old weren't greedy, but the newer set-up made it possible for whomever wanted to pay the most to acquire the best players over time and therefore potentially (if not assuredly) the best teams. Of course, this was great for the players, great for some owners, but horrible for the fans of a more economically-minded team.

For example, it meant that a team like the Priates could scout out great talent and sign them for as long a term contract as they could convince the player to sign. That's how the Pirates got Bobby Bonilla and Bobby Bonds. But of course, as soon as those two started posting superstar-like statistics, they moved on to teams that offered them the moon and the stars. Like I said... great for the players...

Where Major League Baseball screwed up from DAY ONE after the Flood case was in not establishing salary caps for teams like both the N.F.L. and N.B.A. do. It's a simple case of lack of self control and a grand dose of greed. It means that there is no parity in baseball. In fact, there are several INDIVIDUAL players who make more money per year than the ENTIRE Pittsburgh Pirates team payroll!

The players and the owners almost killed off the professional game with strikes in both the 80's and the 90's. To lure fans back to the ballparks (and to enhance their big television contracts), the owners knew that they had to do something.

Their bright idea was to introduce a new baseball that had more of a lively jump to it when hit. Of course, fans love home runs and that's what they got... more home runs. Whether or not corked bats are secretly allowed in actual games can only be left to speculation, but consider this fact. On one day in the 2001 season, there were more grand slam home runs hit... on ONE SINGLE DAY than in the entire 1966 season combined! Thank you owners, thank you new baseballs, thank you juiced bats, thank you steroids!

So now, an apparently bored U.S. Congess is looking into to the use of steriods in Major League Baseball. Talk about too little too late. Baseball has already taken it's "tough" stand on steroid use. Why a player caught using can be made to sit out a whole ten games! Wow. Spank my bottom.

Poor Babe Ruth, Hank Aaron, Roberto Clemente, Mickey Mantle and the rest of the all-time greats of yesteryear. Their legacy has been traded for a buck.

If Major League Baseball goes down the tubes on all of this, I say good riddens. Personally, I'd rather sit around and read about the real athletes of the game from long ago. Better yet, I'll go watch my local high school team play. Now that's some good, entertaining and pure sport.

Goodbye Gonzo

2005-02-24T21:46:00.000-05:00

It was labeled "Gonzo Journalism."

I'm not sure who coined the phrase, it may have been the author himself. But to a teenager with a yen for politics, his writings in Rolling Stone during the early stages of the 1972 Presidential campaign war, made it easy to understand the meaning of the description.

Hunter S. Thompson's writing was akin to letting Godzilla loose on the downtown district of a major city. His words flew carelessly and freely like the arms of a large out of control beast, striking unpredictably wherever they happened to land.

Frankly, I never knew what to believe. Thompson wrote that way. One line he would be claiming that he knew that Edmund Muskie was using some exotic drug from South America, the next he'd be sitting at a bar in New Hampshire with George McGovern at two a.m. discussing campaign strategy.

Maybe all of it was true. Maybe none of it was.

It didn't matter, really. It still left a lasting impression, if not for the inferences that he made, then just for way that he expressed them.

It was enough for me to make a direct connection when I met Hubert Humphrey in early '72 in downtown Dayton, Ohio. The main thing that I noticed about "The Happy Warrior" was that his eyes were totally glassed-over.

"I wonder if he's on those drugs that Hunter Thompson said that he was on?" I thought to myself.

And so it would go that winter into spring in Ohio in '72. I was working for McGovern (the youngest titled staffer in the local office) and weighing into what was "really" going on out there on the trail, via Gonzo.

I remember the Ohio Primary election night at the Neal House in Coumbus, being in the crowd of supporters and wondering if I'd see him there in the ballroom while we awaited George's arrival (I never did recognize anyone who looked like him, but did piss next to Howard Metzenbaum in the men's room and chatted briefly with Frank Mankowitz about the results).

I tried reading Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas but the subject matter didn't really grab me and the style, when applied to anything other than something I was madly into, didn't work for me either. This suburban Catholic boy knew about as much about drugs then as I did programming a computer back then (or now, for that matter).

Still, Hunter S. Thompson will always be special to me.

He opened my eyes to the fact that a writer's only limitations are those to which he himself cares to assign. Otherwise, it's all fair game.

That's no small gift, even if I use it sparingly and clumsily.

Blogger's Note: I have little doubt that despair over Bush's election this past November played no small part in Thompson's suicidal choice.

It's A "Southern" Thang

2005-02-22T18:40:00.000-05:00

"We talk real funny down here.
We drink too much and we laugh too loud.
We're too dumb to make it in no Northern town.
And we're keepin' the niggers down."

Such are part of the lyrics from the Randy Newman song "Rednecks," a rather sarcastically sad, but true piece of art from one of the best (and more under-rated) songwriters in the last 40 years.

The fact of the matter is, the old south is still very much alive, even 32 years after Randy penned those words.

Sure, Blacks have their legal rights, but "rights" without respect usually amounts to squat.

But the southern "good old boys" are still here, stretching from the Carolinas through Texas and as far north as little Dixie, Indiana (still, home to the largest population of card-carrying KKK members in the nation).

Some of these folks have learned to be a bit more politically correct. They'll size you up before using the word "nigger" to refer a black person.

Still, change in the south has been anything but swift. They like it that way... and for a reason. You see, the old ways still offer that stupid, ignorant good old BOY (they call themselves "boys" for a reason) something in their own minds that make them superior to something... someone.

The old mentality shows itself in many ways, but one comes home to roost with the recent Daytona 500.

The same boys who love to proclaim "you hit 'em, you get 'em" (an old bowling phrase) only apply that phrase when it works to their point of "reasoning." Why else would thousands upon thousands of fans curse Jeff Gordon after winning the 500 this year? Why else would so many of these "good old boy redneck NASCAR fans" hate such an influential and successful driver?

It's simple really and southern boys don't root for underdogs, so it's not because they think that Gordon has won too often.

The fact of the matter is that Gordon ain't one of them. He's mannerly, intelligent and well-spoken (hell, he ain't even got hardly no accent neither!). Forget the fact that he has proven himself to be one of the greatest stock car drivers of all-time. He ain't one of them dumb-as-a-rock boys. Dale Earnhardt Jr., now THERE is a good old boy. Born and raised in North Carolina with that thick accent that the boys wear like a medal, complete with the aww-shucks, the misuse of the English language, peppered with a few generally censored expletives. Now THERE'S a man to be loved, godammit!

To make matters worse, Gordon has been to a large part the reason why NASCAR's popularity has expanded to the astounding rate that it has today and that's the last straw.

To the boys, it's like a northerner visiting his southern aunt one summer and running off with her daughter Betty Sue, the town sweetheart.

You see, the boys think that THEY own NASCAR, not the whole damned country! And for years, NASCAR was just like the boys... down and dirty, stupid and ill-mannered. Not any more.

Today, NASCAR is politically correct, just like the NFL, minus the "niggers," so Gordon is NASCAR's "nigger."

So it's "fuck you Gordon, you pansy-assed faggot" (the boys love calling any and everyone a faggot that hasn't fucked their sisters, so that excludes most of their friends and family). Just like Sherman, Gordon has marched to the sea once again and robbed the south of something that the boys feel is rightfully theirs.

As I said, these good old boys don't take to change too well. Gordon took their dirty, petty (no pun intended), even sometimes hateful little sport and put a bright new spotlight on it. For that, he is to be damned.

But the year is not a total loss. The boys did after all get four more years of one of their own kind, stupidity and all.

Here We Go!

2005-02-17T20:27:00.000-05:00

From A.P., yesterday, Wednesday, February 16... this case deals with pornography.

Billed as the government's first big obscenity case in a decade, the 10-count indictment against Extreme Associates Inc. and its owners, Robert Zicari, and his wife, Janet Romano, both of Northridge, Calif., was dismissed last month by U.S. District Judge Gary Lancaster of Pittsburgh.

Lancaster ruled prosecutors overstepped their bounds while trying to block the company's hard-core movies from children and from adults who did not want to see such material.

The Justice Department said it will appeal the ruling to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia. While acknowledging the importance of the constitutional guarantee of free speech, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said selling or distributing obscene materials does not fall within First Amendment protections.

"The Department of Justice remains strongly committed to the investigation and prosecution of adult obscenity cases," said Gonzales, who pledged during his confirmation hearing to pursue obscenity cases.

If allowed to stand, Lancaster's ruling would undermine obscenity laws as well as other statutes based on shared views of public morality, including laws against prostitution, bestiality and bigamy, the department said in a statement.

Zicari said he was not surprised by the decision to appeal. "They touted my case for almost a year and a half about this being an important step in kind of stamping out the adult product as we know it," he said in a telephone interview. "You'd think our government has a lot more things to worry about with the war in Iraq ."

Prosecutors charged Zacari and Romano and their company with distributing videos to Pittsburgh through the mail and over the Internet. Mary Beth Buchanan, the U.S. attorney in Pittsburgh, has said the case was not about banning all sexually explicit materials, just reining in obscenity. Extreme Associates' productions depict rape and murder, Buchanan said.

When she announced the indictment in August 2003, Buchanan said the lack of enforcement of obscenity laws during the mid- to late-1990s "led to a proliferation of obscenity throughout the United States."

In his opinion, Lancaster said the company can market and distribute its materials because people have a right to view them in the privacy of their own homes.

Lancaster relied in part on the Supreme Court's June 2003 ruling that struck down Texas' ban on gay sex, which it called an unconstitutional violation of privacy.

So, let's see if we've got this straight. The Bushettes are spending a ton of taxpayer money to send a pornographer to prison for "DEPICTING" rape and murder in his videos.

And this is from the folks on the White House crew who are actually committing or condoning sexual abuse (Abu Ghraib) and murder (Iraq).

If the White House handled this case like it handles it's own blunders, the kid who boxed up those x-rated videos at the warehouse would go to prison for ten to fifteen, while the owners and producers would be called a heroes by the president.

Personally, I have no use for pornographers and their wares. I have even less use for the lying, hypocritical, piece of shit bastard who has the gull to stand up and claim to the world that "it's all about freedom" while sanctimoniously picking and choosing our own.

This is just the beginning of round two of this bull shit.

And The Winner Is... (Part Two)

2005-02-13T21:26:00.000-05:00

Hooray! Hooray! Tonight is the annual Grammy Awards! It's music's answer to the Oscars.

Now, in all fairness, while there are hundreds of films released each year, there are literally hundreds of thousands of recorded tracks released in any given year. That's a whole lot of listening, even for a large committee. And that's where the problem begins.

Only a fraction of the released music even gets heard in the first place and THAT music is submitted by the record labels. Needless to say, it's the major labels who put on the biggest campaigns to promote their goods.

But Grammy history has proved to us time and time again that even though the whole initial process is terribly flawed, it only gets worse from there.

You see, these committee members are charged with screening and selecting the nominees based on the merit of the music that is eligible for that year. So, in 1989, Milli Vanilli actually struck the screening panel's ear as one of the five best new artists of that year? I mean, forgot the fact that we had two "actors" playing the parts of the studio vocalists who actually put their notes on the recording. The fact of the matter is, it was a bad record with bad vocals (by whomever did them) singing off-key to bad songs with bad melodies and bad lyrics! To make matters worse, they actually WON the award for Best New Artist that year. Huh? Obviously, something's rotten in Grammyville.

But the problems aren't just a matter of whatever bribes the voting members took to pick an awful choice for Best New Artist. There's proof that the Grammy voters don't even listen to what they vote on at all!

The perfect case in point is the 1994 and 1995 Grammy winners.

In 1994, a wonderful album titled "Seal" was released by the atist with the same name. It was a real work of art. Seal was becoming the new Marvin Gaye of his generation (something that is sorely needed today). Warner Bros. hit the Grammy selection committee hard on this one and rightfully so. It ended up being nominated for Best Album of The Year, with "A Prayer For The Dying" being nominated from the album for both Best Song of The Year (a songwriting award) and for Best Record of The Year (a producer and artist award).

Unfortunately, it lost in all three catagories. But while that's where the Grammy story should have ended for that episode, it's where it really begins.

You see, the next year, the same brilliant Grammy nominating committee somehow found it possible to nominate Seal's "Kiss From A Rose" from THE SAME ALBUM that was nominated the year before. "Kiss" was now nominated in the new year as both Best Song of The Year and for Best Record of The Year. Now understand something here. This wasn't a new version or some type of special remix of the original track from the year before, but rather the very same track that appeared on the previous year's nominated album.

And the winner is... Seal... "Kiss From A Rose" for both Song of The Year AND Record of The Year!

So, let's get this straight. A track that was eligible for nomination the previous year (when it was released) was totally overlooked one year, only to come back a year later (after it shouldn't have even been eligible) and take the TWO TOP GRAMMY PRIZES?

First of all, it proves that Grammy doesn't even follow it's own rules of eligibility, but more important, it proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Grammy voters DIDN'T EVEN BOTHER TO LISTEN TO THE NOMINATED ALBUM the year before!!! Now, we're not talking about the voters being burdened with listening to 100 albums to decide the best of the year... there are only FIVE that they have to listen to in order to decide. Obviously, the majority of voters couldn't even be bothered to do that before they cast their sacred ballots or else "Kiss From A Rose" would have come to light the year before. And shouldn't not one, but TWO nominated song and record of the year be enough to win an album the Grammy for Album of The Year? The obvious answer is, "of course... hands down!"

Combine these pathetic "little slip-ups" with an Eric Clapton winning a Grammy for Best Rock Vocal for singing all of two lines in the chorus on a track from a Santana album that features an otherwise unknown female vocalist singing the entire rest of the song and you start to understand the real worth of these fraudulent awards.

That they claim to have ANY merit is the fraud. It's an industry gimmick to sell more wares to gullable consumers who are either too ignorant to see the scams or else too trendy to care. After all, radio stations have been jamming the "right" music into our eardrums for years, why not crown it all off with a ceremonial shitfest grand enough to shove into our other orifice?

And The Winner Is... (Part One)

2005-02-06T23:44:00.000-05:00

If there's two things that I love in this materialistic world of ours, it's music and movies, in that order.

I'm a movie freak, with well over a thousand DVD's in my ever-growing collection. I like all types of movies from dumb comedies to serious dramas; from teen fluff to obscure indies. I'm not great on the old "classics" from the pre mid-60's, although there are a few older films that I do love ("The Spirit Of St. Louis" with good old Jimmy Stewart, for example) and I have taken film courses and appreciate the importance of a "Citizen Kane."

Which brings me to the first part of my latest rant... the awards shows.

When I was 16, my brother got me into the X-rated "Midnight Cowboy" at a local theater (yes, that was back in the day when you actually had neighborhood theaters, not 90 screen cinemaplexes). It was a stunning film and I knew upon leaving the theater that it was one of the best films that I'd ever seen and probably ever would see. I still agree with that assessment.

When Oscar time rolled around, "Cowboy" was nominated for several major awards, including Best Picture and Best Director (which it won in both catagories) as well as Best Actor for both Jon Voight and Dustin Hoffman. The two of them had turned in two of the greatest performances I had ever seen on the big screen and I was sure that one of them (probably Hoffman) would take home the statue.

When the time came for the big announcement, my mouth was agape as that year's winner was announced. It was crap actor John Wayne for "True Grit." Now, I'll admit that as John Wayne performances go, "Grit" was one of his better pictures, which is to say that he was slightly better in it than his usually pathetic, same old shit, mediocre performance.

The media claimed that Oscar "owed him" for his film legacy. I immediately smelled the distinct odor of horse shit. What does "owing" someone have to do with presenting a "Best Actor" award for a typically crappy job when you have two brilliant performers who absolutely deserved the award?

This was my first REAL introduction to Oscar. 35 years later and it's been the same old shit.

Some classic examples? How about Russell Crowe winning Best Actor for "Gladiator" the year that Denzel Washington turned in a stunning performance in "The Hurricane?" But that's okay, in Oscar voter's eyes. They fixed it the next year. Crowe turned in a powerful performance in "A Beautiful Mind" but lost to Washington in an over-rated performance in "Training Day." Sure, the right actor DIDN'T win again, but the error from the previously year was "fixed." Washington won because they "owed" him.

In 1998, Stephen Speilberg won the Oscar for Best Director for his brilliantly savage film "Saving Private Ryan." But when it came time to present the award for Best Picture, the statue was given to the lame "Shakespeare In Love." In 2003, the idiot voters presented Eminem with a Best Song Oscar for some forgetful piece of rapcrap from "8 Mile" while shutting down U2's amazingly moving masterpiece "The Hands That Built America" from "Gangs Of New York." Yep, these voters know quality when they see (and hear it).

This year, Jamie Foxx is nominated for Best Supporting Actor for "Collateral", a film that he's in 99% of the scenes! In fact, the film is truly about HIS CHARACTER! Meanwhile, Tom Cruise (the actual supporting actor here) is in about 70% of the film. How in the world can you classify Foxx as the "supporting actor?"

Finally, there are three main contendors for this year's Best Actor Award: Leonardo DiCaprio for "The Avaitor," Johnny Depp for "Finding Neverland" and Jamie Foxx for "Ray."

Now I like Depp and, especially like DiCaprio, but Foxx turns in one of those jaw-dropping performances in "Ray." It's one of those roles of a lifetime, a gem so brilliant that it will stay with you for YOUR lifetime.

Still, Oscar may well think that it "owes" Depp for not giving him the statue for a very fine job in "Pirates Of The Caribbean" last year or DiCaprio for the obvious miscues of not giving him the win for Supporting Actor in "What's Eating Gilbert Grape?" (another astonishing performance) and for not being nominated at all for "Titanic."

And so it goes with Oscar and the Golden Globes, the later being decided by 27 critics from the Hollywood Foreign Press. Those were the geniuses who nominated "Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind" as a comedy this year. If you've seen the film, you know that it has no... as in ZERO laughs in it and is about as much of a comedy as "Silence Of The Lambs!" But it did star Jim Carrey, who everyone knows is a comedian, therefore it MUST be a comedy, right? Christ!

In the end, both of these award shows cheapen the artform and it's participants. And year after year, millions upon millions of viewers tune in to discover the "truth" about who is really the best at their craft.

Out Of Business!

2005-02-01T23:03:00.000-05:00

In mid-January, after checking over the F.E.C. list of corporate contributors, I couldn't help but notice that Publix Supermarkets, based out of Lakeland, Florida gave no less than 95% of their political contributions to Republican candidates.

Now, you must understand that here in Florida, Publix is pretty much the "Cadillac" of food store chains. Their stores are almost always immaculately clean, well-stocked and manned by genrally courteous employees, with a staff of often twice as many clerks/baggers, etc, as most other chains here.

Needless to say, they are a bit pricier than other chains as well.

The day after the election in 2004, I was (not surprisingly) in a foul mood. Still, I needed to pick up a few grocery items. At the Publix closest to my house, as I was checking out, the female cashier and the bagger (a Latin male who looked 60-ish) were talking politics! In fact, they were openly and rather loudly "celebrating" the Bush vistory the day before. This didn't lighten my mood.

The Hispanic worker was gushing about what a "great man" that he thought Bush was. And then, the cashier looked at me and had the audacity to ask me a most personal question.

Who did you vote for?" she asked.

After giving her the hardest look in my arsenal, I quickly shot back, "That's NONE of your business!"

She did not respond, but gave me a look as though I had somehow answered "fuck you!" to a "paper or plastic" question.

At that moment, I seriously considered heading straight to the manager's office with a mind to complain about their store employees OPENLY discussing politics on the floor. I came to my senses, collected my things and made a hasty exit instead.

So, what a surprise to find that this company had given virtually ALL of its' contributions to Republicans.

It prompted me to fire off an e-mail to their office in Lakeland stating that neither I or any of my Democratic friends not only intended never to step foot into a Publix store ever again, but that we were collecting money to run a full page ad in The Orlando Sentinel to advertise the stores pro-war, pro-Republican stand.

Here is their response:

"Thank you for your email. We appreciate our customers taking the time to contact us because we care about your concerns, and we value your business.Thank you for giving us the opportunity to respond. Publix, as an active responsible corporate entity, gets involved in the political process. However, we focus our political contributions on the individual and their stances on issues of concern to us, more than their political affiliation. We believe in the Free Enterprise system and support those individuals who share our basic beliefs. For instance, this year we were actively involved in education issues, and supported those who were also active.We have appreciated the opportunity to serve you in the past, and I hope we will have that opportunity in the future. Again, thank you for taking the time to contact us. If we can be of anyfurther assistance regarding this matter, please either call our Consumer Relations toll-free number at 1-800-242-1227, write us at the Publix SuperMarkets Corporate Office, PO Box 407, Lakeland, FL 33802, ATTN: ConsumerRelations, or contact us at our website, publix.com and mention your reference number, # 271769.Sincerely, Leslie Spencer."

Sure... mask your true political motives with making it a "kids" issue.

Of course, the brass at Publix (and everybody else) knows that the educational programs in Florida range anywhere from a laughing stock to a shameful failure. But THAT won't stop them from backing the same Republican incumbants who played a major part in implimenting those failing policies. Sure... it's all about kids and education, you lying bastards!

Of course, what I highlighted in bold is the real motive behind their contributions. It's still ALL about the money, the tax breaks for big business, the under the table "gifts" and the backroom winks.

Education MY ASS!

Now, I know that a fairly small circle of Democratic friends is NOT going to effect their business to any measurable degree and I also know that a bunch of middle class workers are not going to be able to afford a full page ad in the newspaper. Besides, we don't stand a chance against a multi-million dollar corporation and its' high-pwered P.R. firm.

Still, in our minds, Publix is closed... for good!

The Christian Catch

2005-01-20T21:30:00.000-05:00

This little news bit today underlines my objection to the sanctimonious charitible acts of many christian groups. In short, there's always a catch, always a hidden clause, always an agenda to their idea of "helping their fellow man."

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A U.S. Muslim group on Thursday accused evangelist Jerry Falwell of using money donated for tsunami relief to convert people in South Asia to Christianity and called on the Bush administration to denounce his actions.

In an e-mailed weekly newsletter called "Falwell Confidential," which was obtained by the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the evangelist said: "Hundreds of thousands are in dire need of medical attention and personal counseling. And in this heavily Muslim part of the world, millions have never even heard of Jesus Christ."

The newsletter, which is distributed by Jerry Falwell Ministries, said donations would be used to distribute food and Gospel tracts in the region.

A Muslim who received the e-mail passed it on to the Council on American-Islamic Relations, council spokesman Ibrahim Hooper said.

According to a statement on www.falwell.com and Liberty University's Web site, the school is preparing a team to travel to India, Sri Lanka and other countries in South Asia. Falwell founded Liberty University.

"Distribution of food and medical supplies, along with the dissemination of thousands of Gospel tracts in the language of the people will be the primary tasks of the team," the Web sites said. "Mission trips to the Asian region by many (Liberty University) students will follow in the months, and perhaps years, to come."

And who wouldn't be offended by this? If a major Muslim group had offered aid to Florida hurricane victims this past summer, if... and only if... they had a heavy Muslim hand on their shoulder, frankly, they too would have not only been offended, but would have fired a few rounds of buckshot at the "infidels."

It reminds me of a drive that a local television station in Orlando did in the mid-90's after a hurricane demolished much of Haiti. They raised money... to buy... BIBLES to take to the poor ravaged island nation. Sure, they were dying, they were starving, but who cares? There were potential new christians there. Would you like ketchup or mustard with your Genesis?

Bush's Priorities

2005-01-18T22:22:00.000-05:00

In case you missed it, on the CBS News Sunday morning program "Face The Nation," host Bob Schieffer ended the program this past week with a story pertaing to the inuguration this week.

It seems that the Bush administration is sticking the District of Columbia with a 12 million bill for over-time police presence AND for the building of parade reviewing stands! If this isn't ridiculous in itself, they originally didn't plan to reimburse the District for the costs.

After protests from District leaders, the Bush administration found a way for the District to cover the costs.

TAKE IT FROM THEIR HOMELAND SECURITY FUNDING!

When does arrogance cross over to absurdity?

Take funds set aside for police body armor, warning systems and other terrorist protective measures in a top level target city and reallocate those funds for building grand stands for the V.I.P.'s who will be attendance for the asshole's coronation.

As usual, Bush talks the talk, but when push comes to shove, the walk becomes another stumble.

And 51% of voters believed and trusted this asshole!

CREDO Part Nine

2005-01-09T21:31:00.000-05:00

So Jesus seemed to have all of right ideas, only men of power later shreaded and deluded the message. Ask yourself this, what difference does it make if this man Jesus was killed on a cross, beaten to death with rocks, stabbed by a sword or just died of a disease or old age?

I think that the answer is nothing; no difference.

Yet the symbol of the crucifix (foreboding as it is) and the idea that this man HAD to die to save us from our sins has been needlessly and worthlessly woven into some kind of suit of armor for christians today. It's all part of an ugly conspiracy to scare women and children (and many men) into a religious frenzy.

And it is EXACTLY this kind of bullshit that takes away from all of the otherwise good things that this good man gave to us.

This is a big part of the reason that I denounce organized religion! By and large, particularly christian religions are smothered in pathetic ritualistic nonsense that detracts from the message... the REAL message.

But there is no buying into "faith" as a halfway gesture. It's ALL or NONE.

If you believe most of these religious sects, they tell you that if you don't follow one ceremonial, symbolistic display or another that you're damned to a hell of some sort. It doesn't matter if a single particular human being follows the words of Jesus to the letter their entire lives, if they don't buy all of the other crap that's tagged onto it, they're doomed.

There are some bottom lines to my series here.

One of them is that christianty is more likely a good thing than a bad thing. Being raised "christian" can screw with your mind big time, but at the same time, if properly taught, it speaks volumes about the differences between right from wrong, tolerance, forgiveness, humility, charity, brotherhood, pacifism, gentility, as well as other character traits that would serve mankind to his best.

Sadly, it seems that it is virtually impossible to find an undeluded reflection of the ideas attributed to Jesus, at least without all of the bullshit attached by organized religion.

What this has done to a lot of individuals is to drive them inward. We look around and see that logically, the only "god" we know for sure exists is ourselves. After all, we are the ones who decide much of our own fate. I chose to write this series on religious ideas and theories on my own, not because my next door neighbor made me do it. If you decide to put a gun to your head (or somebody else's) then you will suffer the consequences, one way or another, if the gun is loaded and you pull the trigger.

Each of us has our own unique perspectives on every aspect of our lives and on life itself. Each of us decides what we choose to accept or believe. I've never been to Paris, France, but I've seen enough evidence to believe that there is such a place. Now, heaven and/or hell... that's another thing. Frankly, I don't believe in either and could care less who does and doesn't, unless someone tries to thrust it onto me or use it as a justification for some otherwise discusting inhumane behavior.

In the end, we are animals with one thing in common to all other living organisms on this planet. A quest for survival of the species. While that fact may not be good enough for most human beings to accept, I see no reason to believe that humans are a chosen order that has any greater privledges than any other of Earth's inhabitants.

I do believe in life after death. No, not in an afterlife per se, but we touch and influence thousands of people in our lifetimes and they carry a part of us with them and subtlely pass that along to others as well, including generations to come. That may be of small consequence to many, but it's the best that we have available to each of us.

CREDO Part Eight

2005-01-04T22:03:00.000-05:00

Who's this "Jesus" and why was he even needed?

I've always found that to be a good question. Of course, by myth (or history) he was a human being who walked the earth at around the year 4-5 a.d.

According to legends (and I use plural intentionally here), he had a way with many of his fellow people. He was called a prophet; some called him THE prophet, although John The Baptist kind of had that title locked up (kind of like Elvis is "The King").

Let me state at this point that I am not totally ignorant of the gospels, but I'm certainly NOT a scholar either. It has been, in fact, some time since I've looked at them.

What I do know is that they vary from author to author. Some things are consistantly written, some are not. While one author accentuates one event, another has completely left out the same event. Maybe that matters, maybe it doesn't.

In retrospect, there are a lot of theories about the reality here. Some have theorized that "Jesus" was not ONE man per se, but several teachers/philosophers later combined into one myth. Some biblical scholars believe that THE Jesus was married and give some pretty convincing evidence that he was in fact betroved to Mary Magdeline.

Maybe that matters, maybe it doesn't.

The most important thing that seems to matter to me is WHY did people embrace THIS particular man (or men) as the new coming of THE GOD?

First, let's start with the very logic behind the idea that a Jesus was the "son of god." Logic tells us that's an impossibility unless the believers missed something. Unless this god, himself, took manform and screwed the "virgin" Mary or did a Samantha Stevens type of nose twitching and threw some spunk into Mary's womb, then the claim to "son of" is null and void.

But no, that wouldn't work. Mary had to be untouched... immaculate.

The fact of the matter almost has to be, that this savior was not necessarily invented (as in, made up) so much as he was proclaimed.

Perhaps the original god concept wasn't working for enough humans under it's evolutionary development and either a new god or a refurbished god was needed to "fix things."

By all accounts, this Jesus and his teachings were that of a kinder, gentler, more understanding and loving "entity." The things that he reportedly taught were much easier to appreciate than the cruel nasty god to which the Jews answered.

And let's face it, if this Jesus person actually said the things that he said, perhaps many of us would agree that he was on the right track. "Love thy neighbor as thyself" is a far cry better than the ego-driven "I am the lord thy god; thou shall not have false gods before me."

Unfortunately there was a problem. Instead of simply glorifying the words and beliefs of this Jesus, mankind, in all his wisdom and tradition, had to glorify the man himself and raise his status to "god" (or a direct kin). Right idea, wrong way to go. The worshipping of a man's teachings didn't fit the history of human's worship. Only diefying him did.

In order to win over more traditionalists, the only way to sell the gospel was to give them the clout needed to give the power. Thus, Jesus was tied to THE GOD. And from that point on, the kind and sensible words of Jesus began to get lost. Instead of being a separate set of ideas, he became blended into the original mythology (not unlike the homogonization of rock and roll in the 50's into the mainstream pop of the 60's). The breakthrough that mankind may have needed was diminished. For the most part, as in the old mythology, hate prevailed over love, death over life.

Blogger's note: If you've been reading Pastor Paul's comments to this blogsite (and I hope that you have) then you might understand why I say this.

I applaud him with admiration, I am happy for him and I feel sorry for him.

I admire him for having a mind and using it and for sticking up for his beliefs (that don't seem all that far from the core of beliefs that I hold and that many of you seem to hold as well). I am happy for him because he believes in a loving diety, not the monster god to which many American christians bow. I feel sorry for him because he has to put up with a lot of preconceived notions for being an American christian due to the assholes who wear that badge in a so blatantly ugly way. Thanks for enlightening us, Paul. While I might not agree with all of your logic (or faith), you've at least made me feel better about some of the American Christian element out there. (good luck to your Sooners tonight)

CREDO Part Seven

2004-12-30T22:02:00.000-05:00

What or when was the turning point when the human species crossed the line to become the most dangerous creatures on the planet?

There were two major defining points.

First, was when the concept of a "god" was invented and became an accepted entity.

This invention did several things.

It allowed humans to declare and accept their superiority over all living creatures. While not all gods looked or were perceived to look like humans, most were given some human characteristics.

Also, a "god" is a perfect excuse to blame any number of happenstances. When the harvest was good, it was god's blessing. When the harvest was bad, it was his wrath.

With this in mind, god could be blamed for any number of pathetic controlling elements. The most clever humans either spoke to the gods or else convinced the masses that they spoke for him. Using this device, humans spread their own laws and preferences as "god's laws," giving them the highest authority.

But perhaps most important, god was an explanation. If there is a "god," then that being must have preceded us in the universal sceme of things and likely, in fact, put us (humans) here. It only follows that if he put us here, he put us here for a reason, along with everything else.

This "god" actually created humans in his OWN likeness! First man, then from the man came woman. God loved his little creations SO much that he put them in a beautiful garden. All would have lived happily ever after if he would have left it at that. Unfortunately, this god likes to fool around with his creations. He tempted them by forbidding them to partake in some action or activity of his choosing. These humans just couldn't say "no" to temptation. Of course, god already knew this because he not only created us and all of our imperfections, but he also knows EVERYTHING (including EVERYTHING in advance!). Kind of makes you wonder why he bothered to pick up the book at all, since he already knew the ending.

So the humans let him down and he had to punish them. This sometimes all-loving, sometimes all-wrathful god (certainly all-ego, all the time) had to do what a god had to do. The stroies go on and on from there.

The point is that the whole concept of the god that is known and worshiped today as the "christian god" implodes on itself by it's very dynamics!

The second stumbling point for the human race was originally necessary to some degree. If survival is the essence of life, some sort of protection or safety is needed. Clever man began creating weapons... weapons to defend himself against predators.

Unfortunately, with that ability to out-think his fellow creatures, also came greed, lust for power, etc. Soon, he realized that weapons for defense could be just as effective as weapons for offense, not just against other creatures, but against others of his own species as well. If Neanderthal "A" has a big rock that he's been bashing in heads with, Neanderthal "B" had to find a bigger rock!

As human passions grew, so did his jealousies, lusts and desire for power. Weapons grew with them. Whoever had the biggest, most efficient, most deadly weapon won the game. From rock to spear, to arrow, to gun, to bomb, to missle.

Buy hey, who cares who and how many died and for whatever cause? There was god to sort the whole mess out in the end.

CREDO Part Six

2004-12-27T18:26:00.000-05:00

So why haven't other animals evolved as proficiently as humans?

The answer is THEY HAVE. In fact, they have likely evolved much better than we have.

If there's anything that's evident with the evolutionary theory, it's that life is all about survival. That goes for ALL living things.

No doubt, birds for example, have evolved to sometimes survive in a human controlled environment. They now build nests in chimneys, balcony railings, rain gutters, etc. If thier homes are destroyed, they simply figure out a new location to breed and raise their offspring. In other words, they have evolved to where they do what they're supposed to do... propagate... survive!

And then, here we are, a species that has in many ways, DE-EVOLVED.

Yes, we still live for the survival of our species, but through our "cleverness," we have also been turned into the planet's monster.... the beast that can and likely will end up destroying the very structure that enables us to exist in the first place. In addition, we'll take all of the other living organisms with us!

No wonder the concept of an afterlife was created. Only humans could be so cleverly stupid as to invent a "saving grace" concept that acts as an "escape hatch" from the realities of living and dying with (and sharing) the boundaries of our environment.

Where did the human species go wrong?

I know that this idea will, to say the least, run contrary to the core beliefs/understandings of most, if not all of you reading this post. Some of you will either think that I'm crazy or just the ultimate cynic.

It seems to me that humans were an evolutionary mutation. Somewhere along the line, the development of the ape brain went haywire. It wasn't "supposed" to happen, but it did. Mutations are NEVER supposed to happen.

There was NEVER supposed to be a "thinking" living creature anywhere near the level that mankind has evolved. Instead of leading us to BETTER survival skills, it has lead us away from many of the basic instincts that would automatically keep our species alive indefinitely.

So, are human beings the most superior species on the planet or the most inferior?

I'll answer that question with another question.

Is a species that has "cleverly" devised a way to eliminate itself within minutes truly "superior" to all other species?

CREDO Part Five

2004-12-21T04:05:00.000-05:00

Evolution is not a belief. It's a suspicion. I don't "believe" in evolution, it just sells well to the logic chip in my mind.

That said, the theory of evolution does not in itself eliminate the possibility of a creation by a god of some sort, of a creature that is similar to human beings as we know them today, even if it was an ape-type animal.

However, if you couple it with another logical theory known as "The Big Bang," then chances are that it all adds up to the environment being right for the creation of a single living organism that over time grew and mutated again and again and then evolved into other creatures.

This is the combo of theories that sit best with my mind. That may be hard to take or understand and the ramifications are most difficult to swallow.

If "Big Bang"/evolution are both logically true, then the fact of the matter is, ALL animals (including human beings), plants... all living things have a single living organism in common. Call THAT the genesis of life. And we all evolved from it. That means one thing and one thing only... all living things were initially created equal.

Impossible? Not if you look at it from the standpoint of the early stages of development; something that most humans minds of today can't begin to phathom. But keep in mind, each of us was born into a stage of evolutionary development that is millions of years from it's origins. It is virtually impossible to appear mid-stage into the cycle and open the mind to the possibilty/likelihood that we all started as amoebas (or some single cell oragism).

So did evolution change when a "god" stepped into to present some kind of gift on the emerging human spieces? Hardly.

If there was a supreme being connected in ANY way to the "Big Bang," there's the strongest liklihood that the supreme being was not even aware of the tiny speck that we call "earth."

So how did mankind get to the "place of supremecy" that it is today? And how about the other equal animals? Why did they not evolve further?

CREDO Part Four

2004-12-19T06:03:00.000-05:00

So why are we here?

According to Catholic teachings, we're here to serve god... plain and simple and non-arguable. If we do so correctly, we get "heaven." So, in other words, we're slaves; toys if you will, to some supreme being who apparently was so bored with himself that one day he decided to create mankind as something he could fool around with, something that could either stroke his ego or be banished into the fires of "hell."

Somewhat clever on the part of the humans who devised this deity and it's rules, but demeaning to their fellow mankind never the less.

But heaven offered a lot more than just a reward to those who lived their lives by the rules of god and worshiped him constantly, it not only became the carrot for following the rules exactly, but it opened up expanded concepts as well.

It became the perfect grief counselor. When a loved one (particular a child) died, he or she was "taken" by god and by taken, it meant taken into heaven, directly by god himself. Don't grieve, rejoice! Your little four year old son who seemed to have a lifetime ahead of him and would carry on your name and genes before he ran out in front of that car was safe now... in the hands of god in heaven and you would see him again in all his (and yours) immortal glory when you got there as well (if you followed the rules and praised god for letting him get killed by a car!). After all, god sees over EVERYTHING. If this horrible accident happened, it happened because god has a plan, right? And a four year old is too young to be damned to hell. Therefore using the "a negative has to have a positive" application, this has to be a positive. The child now rests in peace with god. What better fate could ANY human being have?

Forgive my possible glibness on this, but in times of grief, most humans look for anything to give them strength and hope. Heaven is the perfect remedy. Take two of them (like aspirin) and call me in the morning.

Please don't misunderstand me here. I'm not mocking those who have had loved ones taken and have found relief in the concept of heaven. But at the same time, if we couldn't write everyone's life off as "a trip to heaven," might we not begin to hold the sanctity of life higher?

I know that some would go absolutely insane if they didn't believe in a life after death. Things may not have gone right for them during their lifetimes. The promise of something better AFTER they lose their lives is a pretty strong incentive and/or comfort to plug along and continue serving the heavenly ticket-master, god almighty. It may be even harder for those humans who did not propagate during their lifetimes. The hard cold facts (minus heaven) would be that they were born, they lived, they died; end of story.

That brings us to the next question.

If humans have a heaven and hell, do birds have the same? And lions and tigers and bears (oh my)? Is there such a thing as a "bad" bird? And if they don't have their own heaven, then why did god create these other animals at all?

CREDO Part Three

2004-12-16T19:40:00.000-05:00

Reward and punishment.

So... when the "god figure" was created and given authorities that it obviously didn't possess (being all-knowing, all-present, all-wise, infallible, etc.) what evidence did the creators have to sway more followers to their controlling idea? How do you get a large enough following to buy into the bogus, manmade "rules of god?"

Other than appointing this happening (say, five straight days of rain) or that happening (say, a two week long sandstorm) to god's desire, they had nothing to show for their made-up idol or his made-up rules. Something more awful/wonderful had to be made to be associated with the almighty being.

Enter PUNISHMENT. It had to be something so horrible that no one could possibly miss the point of consequences. They called it "hell." It was a place so terrible that NO ONE would risk being sent there after death. There, you would burn (and hasn't everyone been burnt in some form during their lifetime? It hurts like mad, no?) for a miserable eternity (gee, you think that you might actually get used to it after a decade or two). It would be controlled by god's counter-part (if you have a hero, you have to have a villan... they even understood story plots back then) the devil. The devil would be the character in the plot who would be the evil tempter, always trying to lure people to his domain through things that were opposite of god's rules. So, god was the GOOD guy and the devil was the BAD guy. So, whose side are YOU on?

Still, the threat of eternal damnation wasn't good enough. Just like the hero/villian scenario, if there's a hell, there has to be a home for god as well. Enter REWARD. We'll call it "heaven." It's a place where people go after they die if they've been good little soldiers on earth and followed all of the laws that god set up. Step out of line and, if you're lucky, you'll only get a few thousand years in some middle space called "purgatory," that is somewhere between the glorified and the dispicable.

Heaven. What a wonderful invention. It's somewhere in the clouds. No. I mean WAY up there where no man can see (at least until flight was mastered and we went beyond the clouds). Christianity's pictorial of heaven in the clouds is a damn good example of the misinterpretation of one of the key faith concepts.

But wait, it gets even better. Heaven is the catch-all answer to that ever-grinding question... why am I here?

CREDO Part Two

2004-12-13T18:49:00.000-05:00

The birth of god is a manmade creation. The creation served a lot of purposes.

It answered the question of who made all of this thing that we now call environment. Keeping in mind that primitive man was clueless to the theories of evolution, perhaps the concept of "god, the creator" seemed as logical as anything.

But going back to that development of the brain, that's where the real trouble began.

When man looked around and saw that other animals didn't seem to be as "clever" as he was, he came to the conclusion that HE was in a way, a god in his own right, at least god of all other creatures.

So HIS god wasn't the same god as the birds, the insects, the rodents, the fish. HIS god was better and was like he was. Thus came the idea that human beings were made in god's own image, not those other lowly creatures that share the planet. God doesn't look like a cow! God doesn't slither through the grass like the snake does! And so if man is better, then so is man's god. After all, if he looks like us (or we look like him), then we HAVE to be the supreme creatures on earth. Why else would he have chosen us?

In addition, it's a lot easier to conjure up a picture of god looking like a human being than it is imagining that he might look like a cross between an ardvark and a snail. The main reason to choose a likeness similar to ourselves works for the "power angle" as well. But more important, how could an ardvark/snail god possibly relate to us? No. He had to look and BE like us, plain and simple (accent on the "simple").

But why would this god create humans in his own likeness and not other creatures? That's an easy one. Humans were the only spieces on earth who had enough "developed" brainpower to concoct such a scheme, so it had to be. It's that cursed brainpower again. If the mind said that you COULD do, then do it!

But having this god wasn't enough. What good is a god if he doesn't make his presence known constantly? In other words, who needs an all-powerful god who exists "someplace" but has no control over anything (much less everything) here on earth? More answers were needed.

The only response that could make the whole concept work was that god is all-knowing, all-present, as well as all-powerful.

Still, so what? So he is everywhere and knows everything, who cares? Damn, another answer needed!

Okay, it matters because... uh... this god is vengeful! If we don't follow his rules, he'll get mad and punish us. Oh, wait. What rules? Rules, rules... we need rules!

And so "god's rules" were invented by man to support the plot.

But how does lowly Jeff in Florida KNOW that this is all a manmade hoax? How did I somehow get smarter or wiser than other human beings? How do I know for certain that the christian god was created solely and completely by man? I don't and I'm not. But I've got a pretty good clue that's been left by the creators of the christian god.

If there's one thing that we are taught and is thoroughly believed and is a key ingredient to THE FAITH, it's that god is infallible; impossible to miscue.

Hmmm... so why then does god obviously possess one of the ugliest, most dangerous evils of man's failures?

I'm talking about a characteristic that is totally unique to human beings. EGO.

Remember, the first commandment is "I am the Lord thy God! Thou shall NOT have false gods before me!" Now, that my friends is a SERIOUS ego... an ego that only man could have thought to assess to it's "supreme being."

Ask yourself, why would this god who is all-knowing and all-powerful have an ego and why would he want or need it stroked by the very creatures that he is said to have created? Something doesn't add up here; something's rotten in the mix.

CREDO Part One

2004-12-12T10:26:00.000-05:00

The Christian god. Boy, what a mess.

It's mythology gone wild; an out of control juggernaut that like a saw blade ravages and shreads everything in it's path.

There have been gods since the beginning of evolution, ever since the "manform" evolved from the "apeform." The whole concept of believing in a "supreme being" seems based in logic. After all, someone/something had to put us here, right? Someone/something had to create the world, right?

Sure. But what if (as science has speculated) it all just happened as a post-big bang occurance? Ridiculous? Not really. It took time and a lot of it, but given the right or wrong conditions, it all could evolve to roughly where it is today... our environment, the solar system, the unknown universe... all of it.

I mean, if we stop taking so much for granted, step back, there are any number of reasonable questions that have no answers. The fact of the matter is, we think that our world is beautiful because we're told so from birth and because it is all we know. If we had evolved in a totally different environment, we'd probably (hopefully) find that beautiful as well. Does a roach believe it's environment is beautiful? Probably, but they're likely too busy with the business of existance to ponder such trivialities.

So, when did human beings start evolving and regressing at the same time? It began with brain development. Human's ability to "think" put us on the wrong evolutionary path, one that led us away from the primal instincts that brought us from a slimy amoeba to the "masters of the universe."

To put it another way, the problem really began when we started asking questions. Questions generally demand answers. Answers aren't always the RIGHT answers.

When humans were in the early stages of brain development, when a longtime member of the tribe was killed when a rotting tree limb happened to fall on them while they just happened to be standing under it, then other members of the tribe no doubt saw it for what it was, an unusual and unfortunatate experience. But somewhere along the way, that answer wasn't good enough any more. There had to be a "better" reason for this fellow creature's death. Perhaps they were no longer living because some UNKNOWN power had willed it. Maybe nature had decided to take the life. If so, then nature was a "higher force" than man, since it could determine whether a human lived or died.

From those kinds of origins came more elaborate explanations and/or beliefs and far too many of the equations were wrong. Perhaps the strongest member of the tribe was told by others that since they were the strongest, that they were the best, someone to be looked up to or adored. When that tribal head was later killed by another even stronger tribal leader, then that stronger human became the new "god."

Enter FEAR. Not just fear of the hungry sabar-tooth tiger, but of other human beings.

Enter POWER. Using fear to rule over others in the tribe, the strongest became, for all intents and purposes, god.

Enter TYRANNY. Being god, you could make others suffer at your whim. Being close to god meant some special privledges for you that others in the tribe couldn't obtain.

Enter ESCAPE. Since a sinlge tribal member couldn't likely exist on their own outside of the group, they were stuck, If they were not in particular favor with the tribe's human god, they had to turn to something/anything else to provide comfort.

Enter HIGHER BEING. A mental invention was created to console the lesser in the tribe. A "being" that was more powerful than the tribal god and who could and would one day settle the score. The legend is born.

All right. Maybe it did or didn't all begin exactly this way, but the chances that this scenario is at least in part correct, versus the Adam and Eve fairytale are logically about a million to one better.

A Post By A Guy In Florida

2004-12-08T22:24:00.000-05:00

"I randomly ran across a blog during the last election cycle that is written by a guy in Florida who has little time for God and even less for Republicans. I think it is a good thing when we try to understand the perspective of others (even children). Too often we feel threatened by those with opposing opinions.Well, anyway, he now has five posts on things he believes should be decriminalized: things like smoking pot, prostitution, and most recently public nudity. Reading his posts he sounds more like a Libertarian than a Democrat. But he makes a very popular point about freedom - that freedom is the ability to do whatever you want to do without consequence."

This from Pastor Paul Littleton on his blogsite "Caught In The Middle."

I like this guy. For a pastor/preacher, he tends to be a bit more open-minded, somewhat temperate and definately intelligent.

With that in mind, he's not going to like my next several posts and I kind of feel badly about that because this guy may not be who I'm actually addressing my rants toward.

Some "spiritual guidance" can be a good thing. If tempered with logic, even teaching "christian values" can have a very positive effect on an otherwise wreckless, rutterless individual. I mean, I fully uphold many of the ten commandments. While they may be a control mechanism, most of them are based on pretty solid ground. Hopefully, I'll never have to kill anyone under any circumstances. If I did, I'm sure that I'd have to live in my own "hell of my mind" over it. But that's EXACTLY why that particular PERSONAL belief logically leads me to being against the death penalty for example.

Anyway, I'm not sure how many of his following reads his blog on a regular basis, but if I can be their new devil for a day, I welcome it.

It'll make me think harder, formulate my arguments and questions with stronger logic and make my posts more meaningful reasonings for my opinions.

Thanks, Pastor Paul. YOU are NOT my enemy. I only wish that all of your cloth were as thoughtful and well-meaning as you seem to be.

DECRIMINALIZE! Part Five

2004-12-05T01:40:00.000-05:00

This is one of the most difficult post that I've ever written.

The reason that I state this at the top is because it's so firm in my mind, yet so damned funny that it's going to be hard to keep a straight line of thought going here.

Let me begin this way. Do you remember when you were a little kid, say six or seven and you really started looking around at things in your life for the first time with a real curiosity? Most of the things that we saw, we simply took for granted. It was what our parents or siblings told us was right and it was what everyone else seemed to go along with as well. In my day and generation, it really wasn't our place, especially as children to ask "why?" too often. Still, it didn't take a child prodigy to know that if the question was asked and the answer was simply "Because," it usually meant that either your parents were busy or actually didn't have the answer. I know I asked one question early and often. I've yet to get any response better than "because."

For as long as I can remember, I've never been able to figure out WHY we are taught virtually from birth to be ashamed of our bodies.

In that respect, perhaps this rant isn't so much about decriminalizing as per the law as it is decriminalizing our minds. With that in mind, this makes the previous four parts look like a walk in the park.

Still, in a country that prides itself on "freedom," there are certain rights that we are brianwashed to believe don't exsist. While laws vary from state to state, county to county, city to city, there is no uniform law (and no federal law) that applies any logical reason to disallowing PUBLIC NUDITY.

I'm not talking about your local pervert here, flashing himself from under a raincoat, I'm talking about the right to walk naked down Main Street to the supermarket, to sit in a warm classroom, to cavort nude on the major networks, to attend the church of the god that "made you in his likeness" in the buff!

Don't misunderstand me here. I'm not saying for a second that folks don't need some protection from the winter weather and don't have every right to wear whatever they want to at any given time. But likewise, we should have a right to NOT wear whatever we choose not to at any given time as well!

Do societies that don't treat their bodies with disgust have a higher rate of sexual crimes and perversion? The answer is ABSOLUTELY NOT! Do societies that don't indoctrinate it's members to find their private parts to be offensive suffer any consequence for it? No, they live their lives without giving that matter a second thought.

Religious scholars might argue that the "reasoning" behind this comes from Genesis. Adam and Eve are told to cover themselves as they are ordered out of the garden of eden. So exactly what sin did they commit that was so hideous that it could only be described as "passing the apple?" This ambiguous little cover-up has never been explained but it sure obviously scared the crap out of anyone who has bought into this biblical fairytale and still does today.

If there's ever been proof to me that people, in general, are twisted, this is the proof. Males can go without a shirt in public, it's no big deal. Females must cover their bussom because it's anything from inappropriate to offensive. Why? Male superiority? No, because it's the long established norm. In other words, we've been conditioned, plain and simple, over the ages that one is okay and the other is taboo. And that's the bottom line here, it's ALL about CONDITIONING/PRGRAMMING.

Personally, I'm a very self-conscious person. Even in my "buffer" days, I didn't strut around in a Speedo at the pool. Still, I remember the first time that I went to a nude beach here in Florida. It was strictly out of curiosity. There was a part of me that didn't believe that there was actually such a place that I had heard of where people actually got naked in America and it was no big deal. And so I ventured one weekend morning to Playalinda Beach in Brevard County. While I had no intention of bearing all myself, I wanted to either confirm the rumors of this place or debunk them. Sure enough, when I followed the directions of a friend who had claimed to go there herself, I ran across the stretch of beach that was inhabited by literally hundreds of nude people. As I walked along the shore with towel in hand, it occured to me that no one... not a one of them acted strangely. It was like THIS was the norm, the way that it was supposed to be. I parked my own towel down a ways and while I had "promised" myself that there wasn't a snowball's chance in hell that I would ever totally disrobe, I found myself naked as well within five minutes of arriving. It just seemed right to me. It wasn't peer pressure. It was just natural. Within minutes, the whole experience went from "oh, my god" to "why not?"

Society has been plagued too long with unreasonable and illogical restraints. Do I welcome a change? I BEG for it!

Want to see the incidents of rape go down? Want to see pornography virtually disappear? Then purge your minds and for christsake, don't turn away from your children when they ask (and they will) why they have to wear their tight and uncomfortable swimsuits to the pool. Pedophiles are psychologically sick to begin with, nudity, adult or otherwise won't change that for the better or worse. This very week, in the State of Florida, a man was sentenced to 100 years in prison for having child pornography on his computer. Discusting? Yes. 100 years? No. This same week, a 22 year old woman was fined $68 for running a red light while talking on a cell phone and KILLING two children! This is the society that we've let christians breed! TWISTED!

We'll likely never see a day when any kind of logic will win out in our society as long as christians rule and politicians tremble or manipulate that pathetic christian twisted kind of logic to their advantage. I only hope that one day, somehow, our children's children's children get the right message. Human beings inhabit this planet. We decide for ourselves what is right and what is wrong, not some mythical icon in the sky. It doesn't matter if the human body is beautiful or not, it only matters that every single individual has the right to decide how, where and when to accept and display it to their own norms and rights.

DECRIMINALIZE! Part Four

2004-11-28T22:26:00.000-05:00

Before I begin part four of my five part posting on the lack of common sense freedoms in America, I need to make a declaration.

I have smoked MARIJUANA.

I first smoked it in 1970, when I was a senior in high school. A group of us "renegade, marauding, parochial school semi-intellectuals" got together after a football game and one of the group brought a joint that his older brother had given to him. There was little debate, we all wanted to try it, after all, it was the new light of the generation of love. The Beatles smoked it. The hippies smoked it. The college kids smoked it.

Strangely enough, while my older brothers had turned me onto almost any and every vice that I was aware of at the time, neither of them ever even mentioned pot to me. Still, I had smoked enough cigarettes by then to know how to enhale. I'm not sure, but, even though the others in the group pretended to have truly smoked part of the doobie, I think that I may have been the only one with the enough lung capacity experience to have actually taken in a couple of good hits.

We all laughed like lunatics that evening. We had our first taste of the wave of the future. We were now rock stars too.

Over the next several years, I had and took several opportunites to partake again, sometimes in larger doses and I found out something about smoking the herb. I didn't care for it. More precisely, I didn't care for the type of buzz that it gave me. Due to that effect, I have smoked marijuana sparingly since my early college days and frankly, it has been years since I last did it.

But the lingering question still remains in my mind, why is this NATURAL plant generally outlawed in this country?

Sure, I know the old arguments... pot smoking leads the user to more dangerous drugs. Pot smoking causes brain damage, especially in the area of retention. Pot smoking is habit-forming.

As it turns out, more recent and more thorough studies have proven these suspicions groundless. In fact, as we have come to find, smoking marijuana apparently has some definate medicinal benefits, enough to allow for the "drug" to be legally prescribed by doctors in some states.

And so the question remains, why is this PLANT illegal to grow and/or smoke?

Yes, it is a mind-altering substance, but certainly no more so than alcohol, a drug that is promoted on television, offered at many social functions and consumed on the altars of "the almighty."

All right, some might argue the notion that perhaps we, as a society don't need another potential "vice" offered to us that strips us of a bit of reality and yes, lung cancer is a deadly and costly medical problem. But the fact is, like alcohol and tobacco, the use of pot legal or not is great in this country, from the cities to the backwoods. And that still doesn't explain WHY the use of this natural (read: god-given) plant is still illegal, when alcohol and tobacco are not.

I've posed the question many times to many people and only one individual has come up with a reason why the use of marijuana is not accepted freely in the United States. The reason: it's use is not biblically-based. And of course, alcohol is.

The christians win again on a matter of blind faith.

In the meantime, we lose the potential of billions of dollars in lost tax revenues and truly regulating the over-the-counter buying and selling of the substance would put many drug dealers out of business and control the strength and quality of the product.

And so again, logic be damned; freedom be damned; individuals rights and choices be damned!

In a country full of so many mindless, illogical and contradictory "values," I think that we might need all of the escapism that we can get. Legalize it, stuff the state coffers and control it!

DECRIMINALIZE! Part Three

2004-11-25T22:49:00.000-05:00

It's often called "the oldest profession on earth." This one has both puzzled me and pissed me off for a long, long time.

PROSTITUTION is the topic of my third rant about certain lack of freedoms in the U.S.

The arguments against legalizing it seem to be somewhat grounded in logic. Discouraging "open sex" between strangers surely cuts down on the spread of S.T.D.'s. At the same time, any fool who has sex with a stranger without using proper protection is probably too ignorant, clueless or desperate to care.

The argument that prostitution leads to "spin-off" criminal behavior or situations is, again, a matter of "buyer beware." I mean, let's face it, a street-walker goes into the situation with criminal intent in mind. She knows that she's going to be breaking the law if she's successful in completing her mission. Anyone who engages her service should know that they too are committing a crime as well. And so, it's one "criminal" with another.

But the overall point in my mind comes down to this: if a woman (or man, for that matter) wants to allow themselves to be sexually contacted, there are NO LAWS that prevent them from doing it... UNLESS they charge a fee. THAT IS INSANE! That is where logic goes right out of the window.

What a person does with their own bodies is their business and their business alone. If they want to commit sexual acts for free, so be it. If they wants to charge for those same acts, so be it.

Truly, what's the difference between a $50 hooker and a mistress who is put up in a penthouse with a full wardrobe allowance? The answer is that there is no difference (except that one costs the buyer more).

If prostitution is legalized across the board in the U.S., there would be the possibility of establishing a clean and orderly process in which both client and provider would be allowed a far more safer environment to do what they otherwise would do anyway.

This isn't a question of morality. If it were, no one would pick a hooker up off of the streets to begin with. The fact of the matter is, a man who wants to have sex with a stranger and is willing to pay for it, will find it, one way or another.

So what's the christian-based stand on this and how is it grounded in the bible? Let's begin with pointing out that Jesus not only seemed to have no problems with Mary Magdeline (who was a prostitute), but there is fairly strong evidence that he actually married her (now THAT is forgiveness)!

Making the use of one's body illegal is one of the most demeaning insults ever inflicted on a person by its' government, be it state or local. There are few laws that are as insulting and totally unconstitutional as these. It absolutely makes me want to drop my trousers and tell government officials to "kiss my ass!"

DECRIMINALIZE! Part Two

2004-11-23T20:30:00.000-05:00

Please understand that the word "decriminalize" is a bit of a catch-all term for something that is to at least some extent, treated at least in some parts of the country (or by some Americans) as illegal or offensive or represents a lack of a total freedom.

That said, part two of my five-parter (I've decided to increase it to five) deals with GAMBLING.

Needless to say, gambling is legal in some states and/or under certain circumstances in the U.S. Still, in other locations in this country, it is strictly forbidden and punishable by law. There are no Federal laws applicable to this practice.

Accordingly, it has been left up to the states and/or communities to decide whether or not to legalize it. So what's "fair and right" in Vegas is criminal in Birmingham. What works fine on the Ohio River is illegal on the Colorado River.

Technicalities abound here. Water vs. land-based; Indian reservation vs. Main Street, Nebraska. In the end, it's nothing more than another case of "community standards" and you and I know what that means.

It's basically the CHURCH who is often calling the shots (or the odds if you will) on when and where gambling is allowed. By providing the cash to lobby legislators and persuade voters with misinformation, the church is virtually at the forefront when it comes to denouncing the practice as "evil" and it's entrepreneurs as "devils."

Frankly, I don't gamble, period. Still, I recognize that it is a basic overall freedom that every American citizen has a total right to do when and where they please.

As for the "fairness" of the games involved, I believe that it is a "buyer beware" proposition. As far as the "organized crime" aspects of gambling, I believe that should be left up to local/state and or federal law enforcement agencies to deal with. Certainly, if correctly taxed, there should be plenty of "new cash" available for enforcement. Just ask Nevada state officials if gambling "helps" the state economy there.

The bottom line here is that it is just another example of Americans not being allowed the freedom to determine their own fates at the cost of pacifying the religious eliment. In the bible, Jesus didn't rant against gambling or gamblers, he ranted against their gambling in places of religious worship.

For that matter, no less than 22 red states have lotteries in place. Apparently, these christians see state lotteries like "little white lies" or something to that effect. Is buying a lottery ticket gambling? You bet your sweet ass it is, you hypocritical bastards!

Should there be roulette tables in Best Buy stores? Why not, if the management decides to allow or encourage it. Should there be slot machines at every McDonald's? Why not? Most people would be better off spending their bucks on slots than on the crap they pass off as food anyway (and think of the calories you'd save).

Is being allowed to bet on anything that any American wants to bet on at his or her discretion a true measure of freedom in this country? Bingo!

DECRIMINALIZE! Part One

2004-11-21T11:15:00.000-05:00

Sure, I know.

This certainly doesn't seem to be the time to be talking liberal ideas, but then, in our backward thinking country, when is it a good time to be liberal?

America is one of the strangest societies on the face of the earth. No doubt, this is largely due to the influence of the church, but that doesn't account for all of the non-church-going citizens falling in line on any number of issues.

Nearly since our conception, it has been the church that has set forth the "moral standard" for America, even if our Founding Fathers wanted desperately to keep that institution OUT!

Of course, now the church is shoving it's fat ass around with even greater frequency. These control freaks somehow think that they now have a mandate to crush anything that doesn't happen to fit their biblical agenda for any given day. Guess again.

First of all, not ALL American christians are intolerant bigots. Not ALL American christians look to their ministers/priests/pastors as some sort of human god that has to be the last word on moral issues. Not ALL American christians are either anti-abortion or against a woman's right to choose. Not ALL American christians are against gay rights. Not ALL American christians voted for George W. Bush. And finally, not ALL American christians are mindless sheep.

That said, it is far past due for America in general, as a society to GET REAL on four specific issues/ideas.

The first issue that I'm going to write about is LANGUAGE.

What is it about freedom of speech that isn't made crystal clear in our Bill of Rights?

While it may not be literally "criminal" to use certain words in public, the use of those and all words is totally protected by U.S. Federal law.

So, why is it that the F.C.C. finds it necessary to police the airwaves for "offenders?" Do you actually know more than a handful of people (male and female) under the age of fifty who don't use those words considered taboo on a fairly regular basis?

Two of the Republican Presidents who used the word "fuck" on a regular (if not a nearly continual basis) were Nixon and now, George W. Bush. Insiders have said from almost day one, that Dahb-ya peppers his speech with the words "fuck" and "shit" on a quite regular basis and frankly, I could care less.

What I do care about is that his communications policing agency, the F.C.C. holds up a standard that is an unrealistic ruse.

Let talk about simple common sense. For people who find the "dirty words" offensive, I say "Tough shit!" Like so many other christian forums, the ban on these words in mainstream communication is equilalent to the proverbial ostrich sticking it's head in the sand. I know of more chrisitans who use those words than any other segment of my inner circle of acquaintences and friends. The word "fuck" is an acronym for "For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge." Wow, how dirty is that? Those who find the word "shit" offensive simply think that their's doesn't stink. As much as they might want to deny it, both words are currently as ingrained in our American vocabulary as "hell," "damn" and "bitch."

Even my sainted mother (and she is about as sainted as you get in regard to the use of "dirty language"), recently referred to her own beloved sister (who happens to be a nun) as a "total bitch!"

The bottom line here is simple. If given carte blanche to use these words openly, they will become as archaic as "heck" or "hell" in a big hurry.

Presidents, politicians, Wall Street execs, judges, lawyers, athletes and soccer moms use these "nasty" words commonly, yet as a society, we continue to "criminalize" the use of these words as meaning something vulgar and unacceptable.

Do our children, who hear these words often at home, probably more on the streets and from their peers really need to be protected from the firey gates of hell or a loss of personal dignity by otherwise being sheltered from hearing them? I think not. Young kids love to act and talk with a faux maturity level by emulating their parents "bad" habits. My nephew (when he was a first-grader) was sent home from school for calling another kid a "fuckhead." My brother and his wife, snickered to one another as to "where did he pick-up such language?!?" Of course, they knew that their young son got it from them, a Ph.D and his professional working wife.

Does opening a word to commonality mark an end to decency and the fall of our civilization. Of course not. Does using a word (any word) promote an individual to the rank of an uneducated, unwashed, immoral piece of trash? Of course not.

It's time for the F.C.C. to drop their list of "offensive" words and that includes the word "nigger." While it may be considered a racial slur to many, is the word "faggot" any less offensive to a gay person? Nigger" is an F.C.C. no-no. "Faggot" is not.

Get real America. "Fuck" up a storm (both verbally and physically). Let's "decriminalize" language is our society. Anything less is just a waste of an argument and turning a blind eye to reality.

This Is NOT A Joke!

2004-11-16T20:48:00.000-05:00

I was recently put onto a site that is hosted by Baptists in Landover (Maryland, I presume). Included in their November "newsletter" (postings) was a letter that is disguised as a prayer.

I swear that everything in parenthesis is contained in this posting on the Landover site. This is not a joke. I will comment bit by bit (regular type is my commentary).

Dear Lord Jesus, Thank you for not killing me before I had a chance to accept you as my Personal Savior.

Thank you for not killing me? If this the lord of all love, please kill me now! I don't want ANY part of your universal ego! Meanwhile, I'm sure that this opening scared the crap out of the cowardly flock.

I believe that Liberals and Democrats are under the control of Satan and his sneering minions, the educated and the well-traveled.

There's nothing like starting off a prayer by berating yourself. Admit at the top that you're a stupid, dumb-ass (as in, not well-educated... except in knowing the parts of the bible that your minister insists are valid). I'm a Liberal AND a Democrat... am I THE devil or just a sneering minion? Probably just the latter. These folks would say that I would be too egotistical to think that I am THE DEVIL.

I do not want to be tossed into the incandescent flames of the sadistic hell you created for those who did not vote for George W. Bush or waiver in their faith by questioning the honesty, competence or syntax of Jesus' anointed .

Wow, "incandescent" and "syntax" in the same sentence. Those are awfully big words for a writer with a fourth grade education. Frankly, this condemns WELL over half of the country to hell. After all, we cannot question Bush or his competence, and after all, he is "Jesus' anointed."

Please Lord Jesus, I want to become a True Republican and a Real American. I accept you as my Lord and Savior.

Wasn't Nixon a "true Republican?" Wasn't Franklin Roosevelt a "real American?"

I believe that You died for my sins and rose on the third day and floated off to your invisible, exquisitely decorated mansion in the Holy Ghost's subdivision in the clouds while an audience of early Republican prophets looked on.

Why float when you can soar? "Exquisitely decorated mansion in the Holy Ghost's subdivision?"

Hmm... does that mean that the lord Jesus lives in a Graceland kind of thing in the sky? Oh, I'm sorry, it's invisible (if my place looked as tacky as Graceland, I'd will that it'd be invisible as well... good call lord). Does every saint get their own subdivision as well? Do prices vary from one heavenly suburb to another? If all of the world becomes Baptists and all follow the lord to the max in the next fifty years, will inflation drive the current heavenly residents out of their more saintly suburbs and into "barely-made-it-in" heavenly slums?

"Early Republican prophets looked on." The remains of Teddy Roosevelt just turned left and puked in his grave. Does Nixon use the "F" word less in heaven? If it's out of his vocabulary, then I guess he doesn't say much these days.

I believe that in voting Republican, I am doing the implacable will of God. I long to join my brother in Christ, George W. Bush, and every single True Christian who voted for Him.

Okay, so now please note that the pronoun that refers to Geroge W. Bush has been capitalized, putting Him on the same level as THE LORD himself. I'm not so sure that the good lord wouldn't find this just a wee bit blasphemous. Now we're really getting on some rough terrain. I think that the author of this piece might want to avoid lightning storms in the future.

The post/prayer goes on for a few more venomous paragraphs and wraps this way:

I gladly tithe my mind and no less than 10% of my paycheck, renouncing the demons of logic and education for they will no longer hold sway in my heart, as I now have both Mr. Bush and Mr. Jesus as my co-redeemers! Amen!

The "demons of logic and education?" All right, now you're sure that I'm joking with this whole thing, right? Sorry... it's for real. See THIS

Politics IN Religion

2004-11-13T21:11:00.000-05:00

Is there anything more straight-forward than christian religious faith?

I mean, come on, it's all biblically-based, it's all centered on the teachings of a single prophet or "son of god." You either accept this principle and carry the profound faith or else you're damned to hell. Case closed.

After all, in every bible version that I've ever read, there's a passage from the very mouth of the savior himself that says "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's; render unto god the things that are god's."

Is there any doubt here what the mesiah was saying? I think not. It is crystal clear what he was COMMANDING here and there's no room for any reinterpretation. Case closed.

Needless to say, while the holy one not only meant that the church (any church) should stay out of politics, no doubt this doctrine was also intended as an "internal memo" as well. If J.C. was telling his followers to keep out of state politics, he was also saying, "Keep the politics OUT of the church as well."

Still, church leaders continue to play politics, not only with governments, but within their own "sacred institutions" as well.

The best recent example of this is the American christians leadership's condemnation of gays and more specifically, state recognized gay marriage.

If they followed their own sainted creator's word, state sanctified marriage would be a moot point, whether it be of a hetro or homosexual nature.

But church leaders know a "hot button" when they see one. Do American christians as a majority hate gays? The answer is "NO!"

So where is all of the hateful, bigoted rhetoric coming from? It's not from the flock, it's from the manipulative leadership!

You see, gays are only a pawn in their game. The leadership knows that the redemption of homosexuals is a totally lost cause and frankly, they could care less about them.

But, at the same time, why let such a traditionally prejudicial hatred go untapped? And so, they decided to use the issue of gay rights as both a wedge and a firestarter to further other causes, including the election of their faux-christian Presidential candidate.

Who knows whether it was Rove who tipped off the christian leadership or vice versa, but they worked in unison to force the issue down the throats of many Americans this past election.

Ohio is a PRIME example. Well, before the election, there were already state laws on the books that not only prohibited gay marriages in the state, but also made it unlawful for the state to recognize gay marriages allowed by law in other states. Again, case closed.

So, why was it necessary to put the issue on the November ballot in the Buckeye State? Answer: "IT WASN'T!"

It was put there for one reason and one reason only, to alienate christians from the gay rights movement and to energize them to support the candidate that has proposed a national constitutional amendment defining marriage strictly as a union between a man and a woman.

These hypocritical cowards don't give a damn about gay rights one way or another, but if they can use the issue to manipulate the flock through hatred and prejudice, they're only all too happy to throw fuel on the fire. These disgusting excuses for moral leadership care about one thing and one thing only and that's their own PERSONAL POWER. And they'll be more than happy to use (misuse) their flocks to boister that aim.

When American religious leaders heard B.T. Barnum's statement, "There's a sucker born every minute," the first thought through thier own power-hungry, egotistical minds was surely, "Really... every minute, huh?"

Reality TV

2004-11-11T18:40:00.000-05:00

Tonight, in many homes across America, television viewers will have among other choices, NBC's "Joey," "Will And Grace," "The Apprentice" and "E.R." CBS will be offering "Survivor," "CSI: Crime Scene" and "Without A Trace." Of course, Fox offers it's adult teen fare, "The O.C." and "North Shore."

And then, there's ABC.

This evening, the Disney-owned network, is offering the film, "Saving Private Ryan." It's Stephen Speilberg's award-winning film, starring Tom Hanks, that's been called the most realistic war film ever made.

It begins with the D-Day invasion and follows the trail of soldier's in search of a soldier. The invasion scenes are difficult to watch. They portray both the human scarafice and the bruality that war demands of its' victims. It's bloody, it's horrifying, it's realistic. It will leave a mark on you.

But not ALL ABC affiliates will be airing this classic movie tonight; this tribute to veterans.

In Orlando, Atlanta, Charlotte and Des Moines (by latest count), viewers will instead be offered something (anything) else.

Local ABC program directors in these markets have decided that the film is not suitable for it's usual viewing audience, since the movie will air in it's original uncut/unedited version.

"It's about a lack of clarity from the FCC." said WFTV-TV General Manager Bill Hoffman in a prepared statement.

So why is the station pulling the film?

Hey, kids... it's not about the blood and guts being spilled into your living rooms, it's all about "the 'F' word!"

"Interest groups are watching stations and vigilantly policing them with respect to indecency. The 'F' word is getting zero tolerance"

Okay, now there's some REAL pretzil logic for you. In other words, death, in all of it's most realistic depiction doesn't offend the FCC (read: Family Christian Community), but the use of a profanity might?

I've often called American christians cowards. Now, it seems that they may be making some success in their quest to turn all Americans into cowards as well.

Stick A Fork In Him

2004-11-08T19:47:00.000-05:00

Ladies and gentlemen, you are cordially invitied to a good old-fashioned Texas-style bar-B-Q!

The menu includes some crow, humble pie, lame duck and the main course. On the spit today is one newly elected president, caught and slaughtered fresh from his recent triumph. Turning on the left will be any number of Democrats, turning on the right will be any number of Republicans, with christians of all faiths slappin' on the sauce.

Who would have predicted that less than a week after the '04 elections, the "hero" of the masses would be stoned at the gates of his second four year term. Even more unpredictable is that the stonees are his good friends, fellow Republicans and christians.

Yes, it's clear that many members of his own party apparently were silently hoping for a Bush loss last week. And, as for the christians, they're apparently upset that the Pres will sit at the head of the table, but doesn't have the Congressional support or the true moral conviction to get ANYTHING of substance done for them.

Christian elitist Dr. James Dobson Focus On The Family is already berating Bush for not being as "fundamental" as he should be. Pennsylvania Senator Alren Specter, likely the next Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee says that there's no way that he's going to allow an ultra-conservative, stone-aged educated/biased judge to head to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The only real power left is that of Commander-In-Chief, but without funding, the chief is toothless. Republicans in Congress seem ready to bring the hammer down on their spend-thrift "leader" and they're talking like there's no way that they'll ever allow the head child the keys to the candy store again.

Even Bush's "close friends" in the cabinet are said to be bailing. The second term ship hasn't even set sail and already the rats are reportedly jumping. Powell, Ashcroft and Rice are all rumored to be bidding an early adieu.

A little lonely at the top, Mr. President? Have a nice time at your inaugural parties, lame turkey!

JOE McCARTHY, You Are Dead, Right?

2004-11-06T09:23:00.000-05:00

Okay readers, please close your eyes and take a deep breath before reading this post. For some of you, it's not going to be something that you'll necessarily want to read, let alone believe.

First of all, let me state a few things.

#1- I am an American, born and raised.

#2- I consider myself as extremely lucky to have been born in this country.

#3- I believe that democracy is THE best form of government to live under in THIS country.

#4- I believe that democracy works most of the time. It has its' weaknesses, mostly due to a lazy or apathetic electorate and an occasional glitch or manipulation (i.e. - the 2000 Presidential elections, when Gore won the popular vote by nearly a million more votes than Bush, but still left as the loser. Another example would be the McCarthy-era in the 1950's when often innocent American citizens were persecuted simply because McCarthy and his band of henchmen were left unchecked).

#5- I would have a great deal of difficulty living in a country where I couldn't express my views openly without fear of government retribution (see McCarthy comment above).

#6- My educational area of expertise is Political Science.

#7 - I am a patriot, but I'm a "guarded patriot." Believe it or not, that is what our founding fathers hoped that I (and all citizens) would become. Democracy ONLY works when it's watched over very carefully and cautiously. The men in wigs didn't advocate all-out blind patriotism, but rather a hands-on involvement in the political process. By the very nature of our Bill of Rights and Constitution, they fully intended that NO CITIZEN should ever turn a blind eye to power. They were all too suspicious of abuse of power and wisely created a system of checks and balances and they wanted all citizens to likewise be suspicious, informed and outspoken about it.

So, what's my point?

In 2004, while a fair amount of voters seemed to have some grasp of the issues, blind patriotism continues to run amuck.

It seems that all that President Bush has to say these days is that America comes first in the world and his audience goes wild! All he has to say is that he wants to spread democracy and freedom to the entire world and his audience again, goes wild!

Certainly, the events of 9/11 did a lot to promote this blind patriotism. I was certainly outraged by the events of that day and I didn't care who the President was or whatever party to which he was affiliated. I wanted to see leadership and Bush initially seemed to provide that by his decision to go after the terrorists responsible for the attack on the U.S. by going after them in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, as Kerry correctly pointed out, Bush dropped the ball on this one and mistakenly re-aimed his focus on a non-threatening Iraq.

But the rhetoric remains. "Democracy" and "freedom" are his two favorite catch words; the cornerstone of his support and election.

Now, here's the part that needs to be made clear, facts are facts.

America is America. Democracy works fine here. But democracy, when you take it in the grand scheme of things, is nothing more than ONE political ideology. There are monarchies that work well for some countries. There are dictatorships that, yes, seem better suited for still other countries. There's communism and socialism that work best in some countries.

The bottom line is: THEY ARE ALL POLITICAL IDEOLOGIES! That's all! They are nothing more and nothing less.

When it comes down to it, Bush's button-pushing rhetoric and pompous ranting is no different than Stalin's button-pushing rhetoric and pompous ranting. Change the words, the concept is the same. Just substitute "communism" and "equality" for "democracy" and "freedom." They both promote different ideologies and neither of them may be right or wrong.

The only purpose for extolling either of these governmental philosophies is simple. Control. It's all about CONTROL!

Stalin wanted the U.S.S.R. to control the world and make it all under a communist system. Bush wants America to control the world and make it all under a democratic system.

All of this makes a lot of people on both sides scream out their support and wave a lot of flags and banners, but both are as potentially dangerous and misguided as the other!

Over-throwing a dictatorship to install a "democracy" is a totally illogical notion. You're simply taking one form of ideological government (dictatorship) and FORCING a different ideology (democracy) on people. Did anybody ask the Iraqi citizens if they wanted a democracy? The answer is NO! No more than the U.S.S.R. asked Poland if they wanted a communist government.

The founding fathers perhaps never envisioned an America so powerful that it could have such a wide range of global control, but one can be assured that they NEVER would have stood by and let this kind of nonsense go unchallenged. They would have recognized that such rhetoric is dangerous for our country and that history has proven that this is EXACTLY the kind of arrogant attitudes of superiority and political bravado that has brought the mightiest empires to their knees in the end.

Be proud to be an American, but be cautious of the words that spew from our leader's lips. You're not the only one hearing these words. The entire world hears them too and it does NOTHING to endear us to them.

Bringing in an America vs. the rest of the world political climate that Bush seems to aspire to will MOST DEFINITELY lead to our downfall.

John Kerry's Fatal Mistake

2004-11-04T21:18:00.000-05:00

Hindsight being 20/20, it's clear to me that John Kerry made a HUGE blunder early in his campaign and it cost him this election.

As nice and as handsome as he might be, choosing John Edwards as his running mate was John Kerry's fatal mistake.

Instead, he should have chosen Florida Senator Bob Graham.

Graham is an institution here in the "Sunshine State" and I'm virtually certain that he would have carried the state for Kerry.

At the same time, Betty Castor would have been a near lock to replace him in the U.S. Senate and John Edwards would have won re-election in Carolina.

Kerry wins Florida; ballgame over.

Now, we have four more years of misguided leadership and are down two more U.S. Senators.

Bottom line: Edwards was a bad choice; Graham was the ONLY choice.

Blogger's note: Democratic leadership and followers, THINK HARD in the future before picking a U.S. Senator as the head of your Presidential ticket.

Senators carry far too much baggage with them, simply too much to try to explain and/or undo.

Americans are almost completely illiterate when it comes to understanding how laws (like sausages) are actually made. It's a little hard to stand in the middle of a debate and explain that Measure 02:1069 included a rider to an amendment to a second attachment and therefore you had to vote against it.

The enemy can and will use the basic lack of comprehension of governmental procedures and operations to distort and confuse the public. You should have known that from day one. John Kennedy won in 1960 partly due to the LACK of a Senatorial record.

A Mean America: You Sowed it, You Reap It!

2004-11-03T15:01:00.000-05:00

There are hundreds of reasons as to why the 2004 elections turned out the way that they did.

Still, there are two MAIN reasons that are underlying.

One: Ignorant people vote like lemmings for controllers, "good ol' boys" vote for "good ol' boys." The American South today, has the same uninformed and uneducated people that lived here one hundred years ago. A simple look at educational tables confirm that. Look at the bottom of the list of performance in national schools, you'll get my point immediately.

Two: Americans are cowards. This point is shown in many ways, but primarily there are two. One is that most U.S. citizens are scared out of their minds that something/anything might destroy their "privledged" way of living. God forbid that ANYTHING might come between an American watching "Wheel Of Fortune", or "Buffy, The Vampire Slayer" for one night!

More important, the majority of Americans are totally frightened of ANYTHING different. At the core of those "different" things are race, creed, and sexual preference.

The Bush campaign was designed from day one to capitalize of these cowardly traits and did so successfully.

Think for a second, did you see ONE... even one SINGLE positive Bush ad the entire campaign? His commercials and speeches were TOTALLY geared toward fear and hatred.

There were no messages of hope for the future, only terror, terror and more terror!

The cowards crumbled, the ignorant followed. Bush and company lead the way of hatred and scared the "sweet Jesus" out of seniors and families!

"I'm a uniter, not a divider."

George W. Bush, you are a mean and ugly man, both personally and politically. I reject your empty call for unity! Those of us who have hated both you and your politics hate you now even more.

If you thought that you had a mean country before this election, you haven't seen anything yet!

This is now "officially" Bush's America. Anything goes.

On a more positive note for Kerry/Edwards supporters, the Bush war STAYS the Bush war. The Bush economy on the brink of a major blow-out, stays the Bush economy. The hatred and division in the U.S., stays the Bush hatred and division. The Bush ignorant and poor, stay Bush's ignorant and poor (at least until they become more ignorant and even poorer).

Mr. Bush, this land is YOUR land. Live with it! But live with it knowing that you govern a snake pit and there are vipers around every corner. You sowed it, now reap it!

Blogger's note: That rumbling coming from undreground starting last night was the sound of the Founding Father's coffins moving. They're migrating toward Canada. No doubt, they would not want thier names or remains associated any longer with today's America, as opposed to the America that they envisioned.

Election Night 2004

2004-10-31T12:22:00.000-05:00

6:30 p.m. - ABC's Peter Jennings: "Good evening, I'm Peter Jennings and this is 'ABC's World News Tonight.' It's 6:30 in the east and the polls will be closing in several states in just a half an hour. Of course, ABC and the other major news networks will not be making any calls on these states until AFTER the polls have closed there. To do so, would be needless to say, totally unprofessional and irresponsible."

6:31 p.m. - Fox's Shepard Smith: "The Fox News Network is projecting South Carolina's 8 electoral votes will go to to President George W. Bush. It looks like a good start tonight for the President."

7:01 p.m. - CBS's Dan Rather: "The polls have now closed in several eastern states. Based on our exit polling, CBS News is calling South Carolina's 8 electoral votes for President Bush. This is likely to be a long night and a very tight race nationally."

7:07 p.m. - NBC's Tom Brokaw: "NBC is now projecting Massachusetts' 14 electoral votes into the Kerry column.'

7:28 p.m. - Rather: "New Hampshire is too close to call at the moment, although John Kerry now holds a 12 thousand vote lead over President Bush there."

7:29 p.m. - Smith: The Fox News Network is projecting New Hampshire's 4 electoral votes will go the President Bush and it's looking more and more like the President may win re-election in a walk."

7:31 p.m. - Brokaw: " In just about a half an hour, the polls will be closing in Indiana and 6 other states."

7:33 p.m. - Smith: "And this just in, another state for the President. The Fox New Network projects Indiana's 11 electoral votes into the President's column. So far, it's been all President Bush and it's beginning to look like we could have a landslide victory for the for the President tonight."

8:03 p.m. - Jennings: As excepted, results and exit polling out of Florida looks so far, as though John Kerry has a fairly sizable lead there."

8:05 p.m. - Smith: "The Fox New Network can now project that Presidnet Bush has won Florida's 27 electoral votes."

8:17 p.m. - Smith: "TheFox News Network is now calling this Presidential race! President Bush has been re-elected to a second term in the White House."

10:07 p.m. - Rather: "So far, there has been only one surprise tonight and that's John Kerry's surprisingly strong showing in the 'Sunshine State.' He currently leads there in popular vote by nearly a million votes."

10:52 p.m. - Brokaw: "We have just received a report form our man in Florida, NBC's Brian Williams, that apparently some of the computers in Broward County in the Fort Lauderdale area in south Florida have apparently crashed!"

11:42 p.m. - Rather: "There appears to be a change in the popular vote in Florida. Now, we don't know if there is a tie-in to the computer crashes in South Florida, but the popular vote in Florida has changed and there are now actually LESS votes reported than before . Also, it appears that John Kerry's million vote lead in the 'Sunshine State' has apparently disappeared and the popular vote nows shows President Bush with a slight lead there."

11:55 p.m. - Jennings: "In spite of the fact that the Fox News Network declared President Bush the winner in Ohio some two hours ago, we here at ABC believe that the state is simply too close to call with Kerry leading Bush by just over 100,000 votes."

2:05 a.m. - Brokaw: "It looks like another voting fiasco in the State of Florida. The Democratic National Committee has already announced that they will file a court challenge to the way that the votes have been counted with regards to several computer malfunctions in the heavily Democratic south part of the state."

2:11 a.m. - Smith: "The Fox News Network still cannot call the State of California..."

3:14 a.m. - Rather: "It looks as though lightning has struck twice in the same place. Florida appears once again to be an election mess! It will likely be days, even weeks before we'll be able to understand what happened with the computers there and just who will win the state's 27 electoral votes that likely will decide this race."

JANUARY 7, 2005

2:16 p.m. - Rather: "The ruling of the Supreme Court, by a majority of 5 to 4, has decided that 'since "Election Day" was determined to be November 2nd of last year, any votes cast on days following the designated "Election Day" would be null and void'. There will be no re-vote in Florida, even though apparently any number of votes were not counted due to computer malfunctions that erased the votes of over a million and a half voters in the heavily Democratic south counties. This ruling means that President Bush will win Florida's 27 electoral votes by a narrow margin and a second term as President of the United States."

7:10 p.m. - Fox's Bill O'Reilly: "Obviously, the court made a wise and correct decision here."

Election Day Predictions

2004-10-29T18:41:00.000-04:00

Okay, so it's nearly election eve. Thank God!

Those of us in "battleground states" have been bombarded with political ads since last winter. Needless to say, we're all election-weary here, even those of us who otherwise thrive on it.

With that in mind, here's my election outcome predictions.

If the election is as close as it appears to be, we won't have an "official" winner claiming victory until after the first of the year.

The results in Ohio will be close enough to require a recounting of votes in many Black precincts where they will be using paper ballots this year. That should take a week or less.

The real problem spot is Florida.

For those of you who have been living in a cave for the last ten years, (no, I didn't mean you, Osama), Jeb Bush, the President's brother is the Governor here. Though he denies it, Jeb has his eye on the White House in 2008. If his brother loses the election, he will be the second Bush one-termer. Say goodbye to Jeb's White House aspirations.

In short, Jeb will do ANYTHING to deliver Florida for his brother as he did in 2000. His own political future depends on it.

That said, there are many things that can go wrong here and Jeb and his Secretary of State Glenda Hood know all of the potential pitfalls and loopholes.

The biggest area of potential error is in the computerized voting machines in the heavily Democratic counties in the south of the state; Palm Beach, Broward and Dade counties.

If the election computer hiccups, thousands of votes (mainly Democratic votes) could be lost in an instant. If the election computers crash or fail altogther, a few million votes (mainly Democratic votes) could be lost in an instant.

I can already hear Glenda Hood telling the media with a straight face that according to the results from the computers in Palm Beach County, somehow only 4% of the registered voters actually voted there (as opposed to some 68% in 2000). She'll look right into the camera and say something like, "Apparently, the voters in Palm Beach County signed in and looked at the computer ballots, but decided not to vote this year and I hereby certify the results from that county."

Don't laugh or shake your head. She's definitely prepared to do that if it means giving the state's electoral votes to Bush.

To complicate matters, these computers have no paper trails, meaning that when and if they crash (and they have in recent demonstrations and tests), actual voting records will disappear into thin air.

Of course, Democrats will start filing law suits demanding a re-vote in these locations. The Florida Supreme Court will agree that a re-vote is needed.

And then comes the appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court (the same politically-biased court that decided to award the 2000 election to their Republican Party mate, George W.).

The Supreme Court will rule that since November 2 was designated as the official "Election Day", a re-vote would be unlawful. Bush will be awarded Florida's 27 electoral votes that will put him over the majority needed to put him into the White House for another four years.

And there you have it.

It's four more years of George W. Bush's treacherous leadership, by hook or by crook.

But it doesn't end there. In 2008, expect to see a "Jeb for President" movement. In his fellow Republicans eyes, through his thievery and deception, he'll have earned it.

John? John? Do You Guys REALLY Want This?

2004-10-28T15:47:00.000-04:00

Life in America in 2004 is GRAND!

The average income for American families is $230,000 a year.

Health care cost are down thanks to doctors and hospitals lowering their fees and lawyers refusing to take bogus malpractice cases. Prescription drugs cost next to nothing due to mass-production.

The stock market is so strong that many people have daily bets going with one another as to how high it will climb with every session. Housing is so affordable that any American who wants to own one can buy a new home with the change in his or her pockets.

The minor police-action in Iraq has proven to be a complete success, Saddam has been disarmed and removed, his former countrymen love us and almost all of our troops (peacekeepers) will be home by Christmas.

Our faith in government has never been higher.

SUV owners, don't fret. Gasoline supply is plentiful and as cheap as ever.

American children are graduating from one level to the next at record numbers and their level of educational knowledge makes old-timers blush at their own ignorance in comparison.

The U.S. is the most beloved country in the world and is looked to for help and advice on problem solving.

Osama bin Ladin is dead and terrorism is pretty much a thing of the past.

Gays have been alloted their rights and live happily intergrated in American society.

The religious right has realized that the doctrine of separation of church and state is the right way to go and no longer pressure politicians to violate the rights of others to push their own agnedas.

Gun deaths in this country have declined by 85% in recent years.

Congress has set aside petty party differences and is now working in a non-partisan manner like never before in our history.

Racial prejudice is a thing of the past and Afro-Americans have roughly the same number of representatives in Congress on a percentage basis that reflects their population percentages. They also make about the same wages as all other population segments in America.

The U.S. Treasury has more surplus than they know what to do with. Social Security is safe and sound and will be around to help aid senior citizens for decades to come.

Of course, NONE of this is true (even if Bush might try to persuade you otherwise).

Mr. Kerry, Mr. Edwards, if you win in November, you'll be walking into a hornet's nest!

My question to the two of you is simple. Do you guys REALLY want to inherit all of the Bush mess?

You're in a no win situation here.

You'll be dealing with a hostile Congress that very possibly will not roll back Bush's tax cut for the rich. You'll have a record deficit handed down to you, a health care system that is totally out of control, a very questionable economy that's built on a house of shaky credit cards and new unrealistic housing starts that can't possibly be sold at their inflated prices... the obstacles to any real success seem daunting.

On top of all that, the U.S. is in a war that it cannot win. If you pull the troops out before "peace" is established there, you'll look like weaklings. If you don't, Bush's unnecessary war becomes Kerry's unnecessary war.

Sure, I support you guys to the fullest, but I fear for your future and ours.

And then, there's that old saying, "you made your bed, now lie in it."

If Bush wins this year, he'll be the one who has to face the problems of his own making.

By 2008, his approval rating will be in the 25% region. With some trends showing that younger voters are registering in droves as "Democrats", a Republican defeat is assured in four years.

Also, by that time, eight years will have passed under Bush's watch and the grief that will grip the nation will be HIS legacy.

If not in 2008, then in 2010, Congress will once again be under full Democratic control. Until then, the nation's leaders will continue to spin their partisan wheels.

As an American citizen who wants what is best for this country, the two of you will get my vote on Election Day and you'll have my fondest wishes for a win and a successful term in the White House.

As a politcal animal, I know that a Bush victory will sink him AND his party.

The only thing that worries me is whether America can even survive the next four years under Bush's tenure.

A Final Call For Nader Voters

2004-10-27T18:10:00.000-04:00

Alright, sure, I know... this post is doomed for the start.

I fully realize that there is about a one in ten thousand chance that a potential Nader voter is going to stumble across this post between now and the election. Even if they do, there's likely a one in a one hundred thousand chance that this might change their mind.

That said, just call me a "never say die" kinda guy.

A vote for Nader this year is equivalent to staying home and not voting at all!

His chances of winning are some 100,000,000 to one, but then you already know that.

My question to you is this: In the most crucial election in recent American history, why are you throwing away your vote?

Maybe he IS the right person for the job, but voting for him on "PRINCIPLE" is still the same as not voting at all.

His belief and attempt to establish a viable multi-party system in U.S. elections may have validity in some years, but not in 2004. His quest for wedging a third party consciousness in 2000 not only put Bush (Nader's and probably your worst case scenario) into the White House, but it actually alienated most of his supporters who wanted to see that third party plan succeed.

If you're voting for Nader because you don't accept or believe that there's any difference between Kerry and Bush, you're either a "past the point of no return cynic" or else you just haven't been paying attention.

In real life, Nader would cast his vote for John Kerry in a heartbeat and shoot himself in the forehead before voting for Bush.

Read the writing on the wall! Nader is running because he has an ego larger than the size of Montana and craves any and all of the attention that he can muster.

Finally, even if you do have certain convictions that lead you away from the current American political climate, can you really face yourself in the mirror the next four years and realistically think to yourself, "At least I know that I voted for my candidate... I did my part," knowing full well that your little protest may have tilted the election away from your REAL PRINCIPLES?

It's fine to be a dreamer. I even encourage it, but in the final analysis, a vote for Nader this year is an assurance that your dream will likely diminish into a full-blown nightmare.

Blogger's Note:

Nader held a "rally" in Orlando on October 21 of this year. A total of TWO supporters showed up!

A Disenchanted Electorate? I Blame Aaron Sorkin!

2004-10-26T14:25:00.000-04:00

Alright, we've all heard it countless times this year. You're talking with a friend, an acquaintance or a relative. You're standing in line at your local supermarket or at the water cooler at work... and you overhear it.

"I don't like either of them!"

It's presidential politics, presidential personalities.

So why do so many Americans this year dismiss two men who have worked countless hours trying to demonstrate their credibility and personal apppeal? Why do they receive such poor preformance ratings by so many?

Pick a reason... any reason.

Personally, I blame Aaron Sorkin.

Sure, he is one of the world's best playwrights/screenwriters, but that's the problem!

Sorkin has created an ideal image of the Presidency that apparently no man can match.

In "The American President," it was Michael Douglas playing the role of Commander-In-Chief. He was playing an upstanding, caring, honest man who kept his ego under control and his good sense in tact. Most of all, he was intelligent and strong. When he spoke, he was commander-in-chief of his audience. He spoke eloquently and you knew exactly what he was saying and what he meant. He also actually listened to his informed staff and their often sharp and direct criticism of his performance and ideas.

And then, Sorkin moved to television and gave us "The West Wing."

Far from an idyllic look at the White House, we've had Martin Sheen playing President Jeb Bartlet for the past four years. He is a Democratic President with a liberal bent, but knows how to compromise and negotiate, all for the good of the more average people of the country. More important, he's an intellectual genius on many lavels, who like Douglas, speaks with authority and accuracy.

He bases his decisions on both intelligence sources and available expertise. But, he's always the first to call those experts (even generals) into question if it seems to resonate falsely with his uncanny common sense.

While Bartlet/Sheen might not be the MODEL President to some, to others, he exemplifies all of the best traits that we're looking for in our nation's leader.

Alas, he is the antithesis of George W. Bush.

The reason that I blame Aaron Sorkin for adding to the disenfranchisement in this country is because he has set the bar WAY too high for today's standards in the U.S.

Far too many Americans don't get "The West Wing." The scripts are too high-minded for many average citizens to follow. They involve up-to-date scenarios that takes a fairly well-informed audience to understand, let alone appreciate.

In the real world today, there just doesn't seem to be many, if any Jeb Bartlet's around. In fact, America probably wouldn't even elect a "Jeb Bartlet." He'd be considered too out of touch with the "common folk" and too smart for the "good old boys."

Still, I say DAMN YOU AARON SORKIN! You put a carrot under our noses that you know that we'll never have a chance of having!

Instead, we have George Duhb-ya Bush!

I know that I use the phrase "dumbing down of America" far too often in my posts. Sorry, I just haven't found a more concise way of putting it.

I've been following this trend for years, but I always expected it to be on a glide path downward, not the tailspin we're currently experiencing.

Again, sorry. It's just the truth and there's no better example than the millions of zealous Bush supporters who find this ridiculous excuse for a leader, believable and worthy of such worship .

This man is a disgrace to his office, if for no other reason than he is the least informed, the least eloquent, the least articulate, the least prepared, the least humble, the least in-touch, the least clever, the least truthful and the least intelligent President that this nation has ever had in the Oval Office!

That's the biggest piece of evidence that I've seen to support that truth. If you don't believe me, that's fine, but to take a Sorkin quote from another great work of his, "A Few Good Men." If you can't understand what I'm saying here, perhaps it's because (as Jack Nicholson said it) "You can't handle the truth!"

Blogger's Note:

Sorkin left "The West Wing" before last season and the series dropped out of the top ten rather quickly. The program seemed to lose much of its human touch and began focusing more on issues in themselves as opposed to the individuals involved. From viewing this new season's premier episode this past week, it looks as though we might be in for more of the same this year. President Bartlet might be impeached by the NBC Network brass before he reaches the end of his second term and/or sixth season.

The Elections of 1996 And 2004... What A Difference A Record Makes!

2004-10-24T13:21:00.000-04:00

Ah, 1996! It seems like 30 years ago.

In that year, It was Clinton running for re-election against longtime Republican Senator Bob Dole.

In terms of many Presidential campaigns, that one was pretty dull.

There were virtually no negative ads on the Democratic side. They didn't need them. They had a great record on their side. All that they needed to do was to tell the truth. The nation was economically in great shape and the Democratic President had done what Republicans had pledged and failed to do, balance the budget.

The jobless rate was down. Inflation was down. Gas prices were down. The stock market was soaring. Interest rates were dropping. There were no needless American wars against third world countries.

The U.S. held a place of high esteem in the world and was often looked toward as a "model" nation.

No, there were very few negative ads by the Clinton campaign in 1996. Why waste time and money criticizing your opponent when you had such a mountain of positives to stand on?

But that was then... this is now.

Virtually ALL of Bush's ads have been negative since day one!

There are two main reasons for this. First, Karl Rove doesn't know how to run any other type of campaign. His record speaks for itself. Secondly and more important, Bush has nothing positive to run on to promote his record earned during four years in office. America has fallen into peril under his watch. He and his handlers know this and it leaves them with no choice but to go negative and leave the opponent on his heels.

When you can't tout success, you must launch a pre-emptive strike and hit the enemy before he hits you.

The perfect example of this: call the decorated Kerry, who ACTIVELY served in the U.S. military a liar and a traitor, when you, yourself didn't even actively serve.

Will this strategy work for Bush? Probably.

We'll likely find out sometime after the first of the year when the Supreme Court once again awards the election to the majority members party "champion."

Blogger's Note:

This morning, the Orlando Sentinel endorsed John Kerry for President. Here's how they began their piece:

"Four years ago, the Orlando Sentinel endorsed Republican George W. Bush for president based on our trust in him to unite America. We expected him to forge bipartisan solutions to problems while keeping this nation secure and fiscally sound. This president has utterly failed to fulfill our expectations. We turn now to his Democratic challenger, Sen. John Kerry, with the belief that he is more likely to meet the hopes we once held for Mr. Bush."

Of course, this is the old left wing media again, right? Guess again! KERRY IS THE FIRST Democrat that the Sentinel has endorsed for the Presidency since Lyndon Johnson in 1964!

America... Meet Glenda Hood

2004-10-22T17:07:00.000-04:00

Alright, many of you may be asking yourselves, who or what in the world is Glenda Hood? No, it's not the name of some inner-city blocks named "Glenda" and "Hood" is certainly NOT the real last name of the "good witch of the north" from "The Wizard of Oz."

Glenda Hood is the name of the next "devil woman" in waiting. She is Secretary of State in Florida, serving in the Jeb Bush cabinet. It's the same position that was held in 2000 by Katherine Harris (did I just hear the "Jaws" theme?).

Glenda Hood got her "claim to political fame" first, as an Orlando City Commisioner and then as the city's Mayor.

She was granted a huge favor By Governor Jeb when she was plucked from her Mayorial status and was relocated to Tallahassee. If this judicious move had not been made when it was, she would be political history by now. Her appointment came in the midst of a financial scandal involving any number of inproprieties including lying to commissioners and constituents about the amount of debt that the city had run up, under her reign.

Trust me, there were no tears shed in Orlando when she resigned as Mayor. Of course, Jeb Bush, being a brilliant judge of character (it seems to run in his family), recognized a pirate when he saw one. He needed a pirate after the 2000 Presidential election in Florida and found an all-too-happy-to-serve individual in Katherine Harris.

So, Glenda hood is the new pirate in charge of over-seeing elections in Florida.

She's already been given a trial run to prove her tenacity and loyalty to the Bush brothers. You see, she led the fight to allow Reform Party candidate Ralph Nader's name to be added to the Florida Presidential ballot. The courts granted her "unbiased" wish on a ridiculous technicality (See: "That Does It! I'm Runnin'" post from September).

In an October 1 editorial published by the Orlando Sentinel, the newspaper criticized her for approving touch-screen voting machines in several large counties (mostly Democratic) that have no paper trail for any kind for a recount, if needed. The Senitnel went on to say "If Mrs. Hood really wanted to boister confidence in Florida's balloting system, she would have listened to her critics." Speaking of critics, a man who knows more about overseeing elections (mostly in third world countries) than probably anyone on the planet, Jimmy Carter has been one of Hood's biggest critics.

So America, prepare yourself for Glenda Hood. You can bet that one way or another, (read: by hook or crook), Florida's vote will be called into question if Kerry wins the state by a million votes or less.

Blogger's Note: Katherine Harris was rewarded for her pitbull ferocity in 2000 with a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives from the hand-picked, heavily Republican Florda 13th district. However, even the vipers have limits to their paybacks. When Harris decided to run for U.S. Senate this year, her party said, "Sorry Sweets, you would have had to have shot Gore for that prize."

Who ARE These People?

2004-10-21T15:03:00.000-04:00

I wish to thank a fellow blogger for putting me onto an election story out of England.

It seems that an English newspaper, The Guardian has urged its' readers to send messages to some Americans in Clark County in Ohio, expressing their concerns about the war in Iraq. For the record, Clark Co. is in southwestern Ohio, just to the northeast of Dayton. It's basically the medium/small City of Springfield, surrounded by rural areas.

Apparently, the newspaper restrictions called for each letter-writing volunteer to receive the name and address of one voter apiece and was urged to write a letter, explaining their thoughts on the U.S./British official political position on the war.

Writers were explicitly warned to be cordial in their correspondence.

Now, if The Guardian has been forthright in their publishing of some of the American responses, their replies in some cases, might surprise you.

One writer referred to the English as "yellow-toothed pansies." Another posed the question to them, "Do you really think that we (Americans) care about your worthless little life?"

A different responder used just about every expletive that you can imagine.

While some Americans responded cordially and agreed or disagreed with the anti-war sentiments, the far majority of responses ranged from negative to down right ugly!

One wrote, "We (America) didn't want you or politics here" (it's a little late for that idea, Einstein).

Please remember that these were responses to one of our greatest allies in the world today!

Current statistics show that the U.K. has over 8,000 troops on the ground in southern Iraq. That's FAR more than any other country's share in the U.S. "coalition." There have been British casualties there as well as Americans.

Whether or not you agree with them, is this ANY way to treat our friends?

It brings up two questions.

First, are these abusive letter-writing Americans unaware that their "Master and Commander" George W. Bush has used the British time and time again as an example of his grand "world-supported coalition?"

Secondly, do these morons really believe that America can survive alone on today's world stage for long? This kind of thinking is beyond arrogant; it's ignorant and more important, it's dangerous!

Personally, I intend to write an open letter to The Guardian to apologize for these pathetically appalling comments and to assure our ally that the far majority of Americans think of the U.K. as a good friend and a true partner in the global community.

You don't have to support Bush or Blair to support a solid alliance and an appreciation for their (our) heritage.

Blogger's Note: Secretary of State. Okay, we all know that if Bush is elected this year (or not), that Colin Powell is history. If Kerry wins, there's only one top choice for S.O.S. His name is William Jefferson Clinton!

The "L" word

2004-10-20T14:32:00.000-04:00

Just when you thought that it was safe to turn on your television sets and allow your children to stay in the room, vulgarity has hit the airwaves again.

No, Janet Jackson isn't dancing "live" during the World Series. This is something even more treacherous.

It's the attack of the "L" word!

I'm not talking about John Kerry referencing Dick Cheney's daughter as a lesbian either.

According to political pundits, President Bush will spend the remaining days of this 2004 campaign using the "L" word over and over again.

I don't get it. Why does the word "LIBERAL" strike fear into the hearts of so many?

Let's look up the definition. According to the American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition, a "liberal" is defined this way: "Having, expressing or following views or policies that favor civil liberties, democratic reforms and the use of governmental power to promote social progress."

Let's break that down piece by piece.

So being a liberal means that John Kerry supports civil liberties. Hmm... I guess that's a bad thing, supporting liberty. No, wait, "liberty" is synonymous with "freedom." Isn't that what Bush has said repeatedly that he wants to spread throughout the world?

So, being a liberal means that John Kerry supports democratic (as in: decided by the people, not the party) reforms. Well, considering the state of affairs in the U.S. in regards to job loss, health care and economic uncertainties, are reforms not needed right now?

Finally, Kerry is a liberal because he supports the use of governmental power to promote social progress. Social progress? Heaven forbid!

Why would ANYONE want to see our American society making progress?

Isn't living in the "good old days" better for us?

You know, the "good old days" when women were "homemakers" and had dinner on the table whenever the husband/bread-winner told her to have it there.

The "good old days," when Blacks knew that thier place was at the back of the bus and Gays knew that their place was in the closet.

Ah, the "good old days" when the President (whoever he was) could actually speak an entire sentence without inserting several pauses and "uhh's" along the way.

Yep, Kerry is a liberal. Shame, shame!

Oh, yes, and while the dictionary might not have defined them as such, we all know how those liberals love to spend taxpayers money, don't we?

Why, in four years, I bet that liberal Kerry might even spend our entire surplus and put us trillions of dollars in debt!

Oh, wait. Our "conservative" President has already done that.

16 And 17 Year Olds: You Can't Touch Them, But You Can Kill Them.

2004-10-18T12:21:00.000-04:00

Do you ever find yourself looking at something that is so ridiculously contradictory that it literally makes you squint?

America can be an odd nation.

For example, nowhere else on earth does the media excite/entice their audience to the brink of sexual titillation with it's programming and ads using scantily clad actresses and models and even sexual inuendos, only to say, okay... look, but don't touch.

Even stranger are the laws governing minors. Those under the age of 18 years old are thoroughly protected by law. If you run across a minor trying to break into your car, you can scare them away, but don't grab them or strike them. That's child abuse!

Don't even think about having sex with a "juvenile." Even if she is luring you into it, many state laws are so strict on this that even slight contact with a seventeen year old girl by a male can land the offender 35 years in jail. It doesn't matter if she's instigating everything and turns 18 tomorrow... when it comes to sex, a child is a child.

While I don't have much of a problem with that, in the same set of state laws, often when the situation is reversed, (a female adult having sexual contact with a male minor) the offense is a misdemeanor.

But the biggest "squinter" of all to me is in the area of crime.

In many states, the moment a 16 or 17 years old commits a crime, it suddenly changes thier status from "helpless, innocent, little baby" to an "villianous adult." In other words, if you have sex with a 17 year old girl on the eve of her eighteenth birthday, you are a major felon taking advantage of an innocent young person. If she robs a convenience store on the way home, she's an hardened adult.

More incredulous, many states allow for the death penality to 16 and 17 year olds, if the crime commited is considered heinous enough.

So... you can't touch them, but you can kill them.

Do the words "twisted logic" come to mind here?

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to sort some of this out, deciding whether or not executing a minor is constitutional.

Maybe their ruling can help to sort out some of the these incongruities.

Are these people protected as babies or not?

KERRY/EDWARDS: A Stronger America And Four Flat Tires

2004-10-16T16:12:00.000-04:00

I remember that when I was a kid, I used to love reading Hunter S. Thompson's bi-monthly installments of "Fear and Loathing on The Campaign Trail" in Rolling Stone magazine in 1972.

Hunter was the creator and king of "Gonzo journalism." His work was outrageous, hilarious and inspiring.

That was 1972. During that campaign, I had no less than SEVEN McGovern bumper stickers ripped from the rear bumper of my car. You see, Nixonites were "kinda" mean-spirited back then.

32 years later, I'm not as hands on involved in politics as I was then. Still, I have strong opinions about who I am supporting for president this year (as though you might not have noticed).

BUT... there are no bumper stickers on my car or for that matter, NONE of my friends who support Kerry have stickers on their cars either, nor yard signs proclaiming our preference.

The reason is simple.

In '72, mean-spirited Republicans would most definately rip your McGovern sticker off of your bumper. All right, okay... just put on a new one.

But today, Bush supporters are a different breed. They're not simply "mean-spirited", there are scores of them who are "Nazi-like" in their zealous support of him.

These SS men read a Kerry/Edwards bumper sticker as a bullseye. To these storm troopers, YOU ARE THE ENEMY!

Here in Orlando recently, a woman with a Kerry/Edwards sticker on her car went inside a local grade school to pick-up her child only to return moments later to find all four of her tires slashed! Circumstantial evidence? Right. The offenders just didn't happen to like the color of her car and were sending her a subtle message.

In the high-brow Orlando suburb of Celebration (near Disney World), cars AND houses that had Kerry stickers and/or yard signs have been vandalized by the dozens. A co-worker reported to me that every Kerry sign on his street (opposite side of town from Celebration) was stolen or detroyed over the weekend; the Bush signs went untouched. Even the local Kerry campaign office is fretting over the fact that they can't keep yard signs available. "They're just being stolen or vandalized too fast to keep up" a headquarters worker lamented to me today.

Bush's SS is on a mission. Keying your car is "justice" to them. Slashing your tires is your "lesson to be learned." Their message is clear. "Don't mess with us!"

Welcome to Bush's ("I'm a uniter, not a divider") America!

No... there are no stickers on my car this year, no yard signs either. In 1972, we had "Fear And Loathing." In 2004, we have "fear OF loathing."

While one might argue that these tactics can't be blamed on Bush, I protest! It is his harsh "patriotic" rhetoric that has turned any number of southern "good ol' boys" into his private SS boys!

I can hardly wait to find out what kind of unity that the next four years might bring if this Hitlerian fool actually wins a term.

Blogger's note: Since Bush wasn't actually elected in 2000, if he ACTUALLY wins in 2004, will he ACTUALLY be eligible for a second ACTUAL term in 2008? (Oh God... I hope that Karl Rove doesn't read this blog. He might start spinning this into reality.!)

Spinning: Out Of Control

2004-10-14T20:07:00.000-04:00

Mr. Bush has now lost all three of the Presidential debates against his Democratic opponent, John Kerry. In many cases, he was shown-up to be the smug, shallow and less than intelligent bafoon that he is.

So, just how do you spin it in your favor? Tough question; tough mission.

I mean, what's to spin positively? The economy sucks and most of us know it. The war on Iraq was an unforgivable risk that was predicated by lies. Osama bin Ladin runs free today while terrorism has been boistered by foreign hatred of Americans. The nation's divided by haves and have-nots, religious zealots and humanists. Health care costs and energy costs are at an all-time high. The country is deeper in dept than in anytime in our history (even though Bush started out with a surplus). Social Security is being flushed down the toilet... the list of negative Bush-imposed gaffs goes on and on.

And he's been called on these issues and obviously, even by distorting and lying, can't get away from them.

Want to earn your money? Put a positive spin on all of that!

The Republican's answer? Call John Kerry a "mean man" for picking on Dick Cheney's daughter!

I mean, come on!

During the third and final debate, each candidate was asked whether or not they felt that being homosexual was a choice. It was a rather strange and certainly awkward question, but I think we understood the point.

Bush answered first with a mighty stance. "Uh... uh... uh... I don't know." In the remaining two minutes that was allotted to him, he searched for words that might show some insight or compassion or at least something understandable. Needless to say, when the homophobic President was put on the hot seat, he squirmed and spit out meaningless sentences that would have made you think that he'd been asked "Mr. President, explain the theory of relativity in two minutes" (of course, his answer as usual, was totally irrelevant).

In direct contrast, Kerry told the American people straight out that being gay is NOT a choice, that some individuals are just born that way. He went on to mention that Mary Cheney, Dick and Lynne's daughter is an openly-gay lesbian. He defended her rights and told us that there were certain things that we need to learn to better accept in our fellow Americans.

Being desperate for something/anything to spin against Kerry's performance in the final dabate, Karl Rove and company chose (of all things) THIS answer to paint Kerry as being of poor character.

After the debate, Dick referred to himself as a "pretty angry father." He added that this somehow proved that Kerry is a man "who will do and say anything to get elected." So what is he angry about? Is he angry because he and his wife gave birth to a child whose chromisone count contained a gene that most children don't carry?

Lynne Cheney went even further. She said that Kerry's comments were a "cheap and tawdry political trick." Cheap and tawdry?

Hey dumbasses!?! Kerry defended you and your daughter, while your best friend, George W. Bush left you AND your daughter hanging out to dry!

The answer to this "spin" is simple and not so simple. First, Republican spinmasters are desperate. They know that with few exceptions, they have no support from the gay community in the U.S., so trying to pick-up any votes there was a total waste of time. Secondly, both V.P. Cheney and his wife have openly talked about their daughter being a lesbian several times on the campaign trail this year, so why is this news now?

The answer is that it was the only thing the the Repub.'s could even come close to finding that might possibly, maybe, make Kerry look like he's a bad guy.

The irony is, that in treating Kerry's comment so villianously, they make themselves seem ashamed of the fact that their daughter is gay!

But the Cheney's are NOT ashamed as parents that their daughter is gay. They're NOT ashamed as hmuan beings that their daughter is gay.

They are ashamed as REPUBLICANS... that their daughter is gay!

You see it just doesn't happen to fit the G.O.P.'s "all-accepting, all-unifying agenda." But they'll be more than happy to attempt to frame a just man for committing no crime.

On this one, the Republican spinsters need to be more ashamed of themselves than usual. They took a somewhat private matter and out of desperation, made the Cheney's look ashamed of themselves and their daughter. Talk about doing "anything to get elected!"

To quote John Kerry of late, in response to Republican attacks on him... "Is that all you got?"

FOX TV : "Fair And... Baseball?"

2004-10-13T20:04:00.000-04:00

So Fox TV is the "fair and balanced" televison news network, right?

So Fox TV is airing a baseball game tonight instead of the last Presidential debate?

So deciding the second game of the American league play-offs is more important than a debate that might determine the fate of millions of Americans?

So Fox TV has a proven record of being absolutely pro-Bush/pro Republican?

So this third and final debate is supposed to be Kerry's strongest area yet?

So Fox TV is "fair and..." what?

George W. Bush Talks To God

2004-10-12T19:34:00.000-04:00

It's late night in the White House.

George W. Bush sits alone in the oval office, rubbing his eyes.

Suddenly, he rises, goes to the door. He instructs the Marine guarding the entrance to not allow anybody into the office. Slowly, he walks back to his desk chair, sits, folds his hands, bows his head and quietly speaks aloud.

"Dear Lord, I know that you and I ain't talked in a long time.

Sure, I know that on the campaign trail I tell folks that I talk to you everyday, but... that's just politics... well, you know.

Lord, remember four years ago when I asked you to put me in the White House? Well, when it looked like you weren't gonna do it, well... uh, I kinda... sorta went and talked to that other guy. Now, I know it was wrong, but that devil guy... well, I know you're all-powerful and everything, but that guy ain't no slouch neither! I mean... here I am! (chuckles to himself)

The thing is Lord, I... I don't wanna be here no more. I'm done! I been ridden hard and put away wet!

Hell, it was.. I mean, heck, it was easy at first. All I had to do was smile a lot and let them other guys do all the work. I even paid my dues and got me and my friends their tax cut. Now, I know I cheated a lot of poor people and that was wrong (looks up for a moment, then rebows his head). Yeah... that was wrong. But you know, you don't get in here without lots of debts, so what was I 's'posed to do?

And then, that Osama guy did that thing and everything changed! Man, I had more people yappin' and yellin' in my ear, tellin' me what to do... I mean, it was crazy, Lord!

Now I know that you know that I had to go after that Osama guy after what he done and everything, but I guess I got kinda greedy along the way. But them generals told me we could do it! Dick Cheney! Dick Cheney! He and Rumsfeld told me too! Hell, they ALL did!

You remember Lord, when Saddam made a fool of my daddy? Well, I had to teach him a lesson... I mean he made a fool of my daddy, Lord!

I thought that, you know, everyone would be happy if Saddam was gone, but some people... some people Lord, you know, you just can't make 'em happy!

But I can't win this war and I know it. The economy is gettin' worse all the time... I mean, in a couple of years, we could have one of them depressions, and now... who'ya think they're gonna blame, Lord? They're gonna blame me! Damn, like I know anythin' 'bout all that mess.

Lord, I just wanna play golf when I want to... I wanna fish and go huntin' and get me a rabbit or a deer or two. Hell, you understand.

I mean, you know if it was up to me, hell, I'd just go down the hall there tomorrow and tell everyone in the press room I quit. But I can't do that. Hell man, you think you was crucified! (chuckles again to himself)

Anyway, I just wanna get out of here. Let that Kerry guy have the whole damn thing. He'll find out what it's like! (he he he) Then he'll be sorry!

Well, thanks for listenin'. Oh, and Lord... please don't make it close again in Florida. My brother has some powerful friends there and I'm not sure, but I think that he might have some deal goin' with... well, you know, (chuckles) that other guy... you know, that devil guy.

Just please, get me out of this mess."

Amen.

The G.O.P./Religious Right Connection

2004-10-10T18:30:00.000-04:00

It all began with Watergate and the Republican President resigning in disgrace.

The party was devastated. Democrats had held control of the U.S. Congress for decades and there was no end in sight. The G.O.P. was desperate.

The only hope for them was to cultivate their breakthrough in the once thoroughly Democratic south. It was here that the "Dixiecrats" were becoming more and more disenchanted with their liberal party-mates. Republicans took charge of the opportunity and decided to go courting.

But there was a problem.

If the G.O.P. wanted to convert the "bible belt" to their "love the rich-hate the poor" policies, it had to swallow a big, fat, bitter pill. It had to buy into the religious right, better known then, as the self-proclaimed "moral majority". It was the only thing that they could do if they wanted to regain national prominence. And so, the G.O.P. became the "religious" party.

The deal wasn't an easy sell. Sure, the alignment of conservative values fit like a glove, but Republicans have a history of being hard-line realists who have always preached a sermon of a smaller Federal government. More to the point, their gospel called for the Federal government to stay OUT of the lives of American citizens. THAT political policy wasn't on the religious right/moral majority's agenda.

The ministers demanded ACTION from their new found friends, Federal intervention to legislate morality.

What was a Republican to do?

And so, the scam began. The G.O.P. would play along with the religious twits and pretend to take action on a Federal level. Meanwhile, in the backrooms of Congress, they would wink at one another while putting bill after bill into play touting changes in Federal law to meet the demands of the Christians, knowing good and well that these measures didn't have a prayer (no pun intended) in passing.

But they were "trying" (wink, wink).

The best and most recent example was the White House's ridiculous attempt to pass a Constitutional amendment defining "marriage" strictly as a union between a man and a woman, thus thwarting the recent gains that gays had been making on statewide levels. Of course, the amendment failed miserably (as the White House knew that it would).

But they were "trying" (wink, wink).

In the 2004 election, Republicans continue to count the religious right as their strongest base. The scam has worked.

Though the G.O.P. has made virtually NO legislative "progress" in implementing ANYTHING that the religious right has demanded, the flock continues to follow them blindly. The scam has worked and the sheep continue to let themselves be used to prop up the greater Republican agenda ("love the rich-hate the poor"), even though many of the sheep are dirt poor themselves!

There are scholars and there are fools. There are leaders and there are followers. There are free-thinkers and there are those who do what their ministers tell them to do.

The end result is that the Republicans get votes, their religious supporters get nothing more than lip service and squat!

There's a sucker born every minute. Most of these births seem to come from the religious right.

Fat Cats VS. Fat Cats: The Hollywood/Democratic Connection

2004-10-07T22:39:00.000-04:00

There are a lot of very rich people in America. Some of these folks inherited their wealth, passed on from privledged generation to privledged generation. Others started out poor or middle-class and worked their way into their fortunes.

No matter where the wealth came from, most seem to have two things in common. First, after acquiring their money, they guard it with great ferocity. Secondly, they're Republicans.

And why shouldn't they be so affiliated? The Republican party has a solid history of doing it's level best to uphold and preserve the wealth of individuals and they have been richly rewarded for their efforts.

So why does the often equally affluentHollywood crowd buck the "you scratch my back, I'll scatch yours" philosophy and support the Democratic agenda?

Let's start with their backgrounds. With few exceptions, most Hollywood actors, producers, writers, etc. came from common roots. They worked their way into the wealthy crowd using their talents (and in some cases, looks).

More important, the group consist mainly of artists. It's a matter of conscience. It's a matter of an appreciation of what it's like to tough it out and beg for a break in a career... a break in life.

When a major Hollywood actor works on a film, they're usually in contact with all sorts of individuals, from stage hands to extras. How many corporate executives ever consort with the "lower-life" (read: common people) that work under them?

Lastly, the Hollywood-types are strongly opposed to censorship, an issue that is generally undermined by Republicans and their bogus partnership with the religious right (I'll post more on this Republican charade in the future...trust me).

The end result is that both rich film industry individuals and musical artists have poured millions of dollars into the Democratic coffers this year, even if it means that their Bush-awarded high end tax breaks will go away! It's a sacrafice that they seem willing to make.

What I don't understand is that the Democratic party far too often seems to want to hide their Hollywood connection under the rug.

I think that this is a misguided tactic.

If I were in charge of the Kerry campaign, I'd flaunt the party's close ties to the celebs in the final two weeks before the election.

I think that a televison ad featuring all of the best known Hollywood supporters, from Speilberg to Cruise, from Julia Roberts to Tom Hanks, from Streisand to Springsteen should be featured in a collage, with each and every one of them simply saying, "I care... I'm voting voting for Kerry/ Edwards."

I believe that such an ad would provide a positive and powerful punch!

Since many Americans seem to be more and more impressed and affected by image, why not throw out the leading images for the cause that they support?

Hollywood has every right to be proud of thier Democratic alliance. The Democrats should be equally proud to have them on board and use their commitment, power and influence accordingly.

"May The Farce Be With You"

2004-10-06T18:02:00.000-04:00

Two weeks ago, movie fans saw the release of the first "Star Wars" trilogy on DVD (episodes 4-6).

Beautifully remastered, they're still as much fun to watch today as they were some 20 years ago.

I've often criticized George Lucas for being the worst writer of dialog in the history of Hollywood film-making. Needless to say, that's not really true. There have been countless films made with far worse dialog than "Star Wars".

On top of that, it's occurred to me over the years that Lucas may have written "Star Wars" the way that he did for a reason. The message of these films is simple and he wanted to keep it simple.

It's good vs. evil, oppression vs. certain inalienable (or in this case, maybe "alien-able") rights. There were bad people out in the universe then who were power-hungry egotists and cared about no one but themselves. In the end, as we've all been taught from an early age, good will prevail.

But rewatching these films today, left a disturbing impression. In today's world, who are the rebels and who is the evil empire?

Take a long, hard look my fellow Americans. The U.S. may not currently have "death star" capabilities, but what nation on earth can possibly compare to our potentially world-destroying nuclear arsenal? That's right, "America The Beautiful" has more weapons of mass distruction than any other country on earth... BY FAR!

Of course, we are the "good guys", right? Think again.

With strong evidence that our main goal for invading Iraq was actually to control their oil fields (no nation consumes a greater amount of oil-based products than we do), are we not beginning to edge closer and closer to the seemingly all-powerful "dark side"?

Don't misunderstand my analogy here. Osama bin Ladin is NOT a Jedi Knight in this scenario, but when nations such as the U.K. and Australia support and follow the U.S. in a renegade, illegal invasion that violates numerous International Laws, you have to ask yourself if they do so out of righteousness or fear of "the empire".

How and where we lead in the world now and in the future will decide not only how humanity will judge us, it will also define who we really are.

Thank God that Bush doesn't sit at the controls of his own "death star".

Under the leadership of greedy liars, I fear more and more with each passing day that we've met the beast... and right now, it is us!

A few comments on last night's V.P. debate.

Dick Cheney is MUCH smarter than his "boss", George W. Still, he'a sour puss who distorts the truth. John Edwards is a fresh-faced individual who (due to the restrictions of the rules of this particular debate) was stuck behind a desk. Republicans (to their credit, I suppose) arranged that set-up. They know that Edwards is a master at working a crowd

That said, both candidates simply echoed the same arguments that we saw last Thursday night in the first Presidential debate. The difference is that Cheney presents his case more convincingly than Bush, in other words... he lies better. In the end, the event was pretty much of a draw; nothing gained, nothing lost for either party. Thankfully, Dopey will be back in action for the G.O.P. on Friday night.

V.P. Debate- A No-Win Situation For G.O.P.

2004-10-04T19:14:00.000-04:00

Democrats rejoice!

Strike two of the debate season is ready to be pitched tomorrow evening in Cleveland. It's a no-brainer (hmm... a description that reminds me of Bush himself).

First, it's going to be a battle of the crusty, mean-spirited, tired old man vs. the fresh-faced, handsome, young optimist. Picture Ebenezer Scrooge on Christmas Eve debating your favorite, bright friend or neighbor. No matter what Cheney says, it's going to go against the grain of many viewers.

Just ask yourself this question. Who would you rather be at a picnic with, Cheney or Edwards? While this example might seem horribly glib, remember that likable impressions seem to be EVERYTHING in these affairs.

Better yet, who would you invite into your home for a vacuum cleaner demonstration, the dour V.P. or the upbeat challenger? If it's all about "salesmanship", the answer is an obvious one.

If Americans are skeptical of the issues being discussed in a meaningful presentation, this match will be all about the salesman, not the product.

When you boil it down, you've got the craggy, almost humorless Cheney with an ethically questionable past going up against Edwards, the likable, forward-looking man of the future... a man of hope.

And then, there's the female viewing factor. Since visual impressions count (admitedly more than they should), you're left with the mean-looking, unattractive old gramps and a rather dashing John Edwards, the man that many women might fantasize about as their husband, brother or son.

Sorry, Dick. You lose this one. Look for yet another big bump in the polls and I haven't even argued that Edwards could be brilliant in his presentation tomorrow night!

In short, after the Vice-Presidential debate, the G.O.P. may face strike three before the third ball is even thrown.

Some Things Never Change

2004-10-03T13:24:00.000-04:00

In the 1950's, there were any number of newspaper editorialists in the South who published reams of pro-segregationist arguments. They were prejudice and they were scared.

Fifty years later, there are STILL newspaper editorialists in the South publishing anti-civil rights garbage on a regular basis. They are STILL prejudice and they are STILL scared.

But today, it's not "anti-Nergo" civil rights that they're afraid of, it's anti-gay rights that has them blathering.

Case in point, a piece by Orlando Sentinel coulmnist Peter Brown that appeared October 1st.

The headline read: "Court-ordered affirmative action for gays"?

It seems that Mr. Brown is horribly worried that since more and more gay rights issues are hitting the courts, they're going to be awarded the same rights as you and me.

You see, he knows that the laws of the land are on the side of gays and if judges have their way, they'll be forced (if they're honest and halfway versed on law) to grant those rights!

Oh my God! Run for the hills! The gays are a-comin', the gays are a-comin'!

Brown refers to these legal proceedings as a "fear of judicial social engineering." What he actually means is "fear of justice."

If you replace the words "gay rights" with "Negroes rights", you have the same prejudicial, lame arguments that were published 50 years ago. Same hatred, different minority.

To boister his argument, Brown sights "majority opinion" running 2 to 1 against granting gays their rights by law. Hiding behind majority opinion is just cowardice, plain and simple.

You don't need to be gay to recognize that gays deserve the same rights and protections under the laws that are afforded to all of the other majorities and/or minorities in America!

I'm just thankful that Brown was not a judge in the 50's and likewise, isn't one today.

The prejudice remains today, it's just the target that has changed.

Debates, Round One, Kerry: "Surpising" to "Stunning"

2004-10-01T17:47:00.000-04:00

First of all, let me backtrack a bit.

In my former post about my prediction for the first 2004 Presidential debate, I said that I expected a "crap-fest" instead of a "scrap-fest."

I was wrong.

Even though the format of the showdown was tighter than a mosquito's behind, it was flexible enough to allow both candidates to "show their stuff."

Now here's a shocker for you. I thought that both men presented their cases in good style and rhetoric was kept at a minimum. Their presentations were lively and interesting enough to hold an audience throughout the whole ninety minute face-off. Boil it down and you had each of the candidates simply, but firmly, laying out their sides.

Still, there was one major difference that separated the two men. Kerry hit the nail directly on the head toward the end of the evening's presentation when he aptly pointed out that you can be steadfast, while still being steadfastly WRONG!

I went into the debate thinking to myself that I expected J.K. to do "fairly well." My main reasoning for this was just a matter of judging the brain-power difference between the two men. I mean, let's face it, Kerry has an I.Q. somewhere at or over 120. Bush's I.Q. can't be any higher than 95-100. I think that W. helped to prove that last night when he was obviously running out of things to say less than halfway through the event. One network observer afterward, put it well when he said that "Bush could have said EVERYTHING that he said in the entire debate in five or six minutes." By the end of the evening, he looked as though he was praying for the red light to come on (the time warning light) so that he wouldn't have to keep scrambling to try to think of something (anything) new to say.

That said, I take my judgment as to who won the debate from two indicators. First, and most obvious, are the national poll numbers taken within hours of the event. In every single result, Kerry was triumphed as the winner from between 9 to 21 points.

That's no small victory, especially since the central theme of the debate was touted as Bush's strongest area of expertise.

Secondly, and personally more telling to me, were the people that I came into contact with today both at work and in other areas. I overheard no less than four people (out of some 20-25 or so) at my workplace who considered themselves "undecided" before last night, who now claim that there was no question in their minds who they were now voting for: John Kerry.

These were not individuals who were leaning Kerry's way before the debate and each of them brought up specific points about the debate in regards to their decisions. In other words, they DID watch the show.

Apparently, many Americans did watch and it was not just my own workplace that was buzzing about it. Several friends told me that it was THE topic of the day at their workplaces or social events as well and that most people (many of whom showed little to no interest in either following or talking about the Presidential race in the past) were talking pro-Kerry today.

Many were seemingly very impressed by him, describing his presentation in a most positive light, from "surprising" to "stunning."

The bottom line is: this race is FAR from over and Kerry's just beginning to hit his stride.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if Rove and company sat around for most of this morning trying to think of clever and devious ways to get out of the next two debates. If Bush got clobbered in his strongest game, how likely is he to do well on the domestic area's that are his known short-comings? Trust me, Karl Rove is looking for an excuse to cancel these next two potentially election-killing affairs.

Last note: Sen. John McCain. What a pity that this otherwise fine man who has been well-respected by Democrats in the past has been reduced to nothing more than a Republican puppet... a "help pull the rope", party shill. His "boy, the president sure hit a home run tonight" comments after the debate were just a sad commentary on how low he has sunk. A question for McCain, "are you selling your political soul TO the devil or FOR the devil?"

It's Good To Be...

2004-09-29T18:06:00.000-04:00

In a hard fought election year, even the most unusual occurences can play a major role in deciding key aspects of a race.

More times than not, in an election year, it's good to be... the incumbant.

In no case is this more evident than in the "Hurricane State" (formerly known as the "Sunshine State").

It's been a well-known fact that Florida would likely be, THE key player in the 2004 elections. Mr. Bush lost here in 2000 by some 50,000 votes. Of course, he took the state's electorial votes via several technicalities.

With all of that in mind, those of us here have been blasted with political ads from both parties to the point that even supporters are quickly bolting from our sofas at the sight of another Bush or Kerry ad crossing our television screens like some sort of computer virus. Yakety, yakety... again and again.

Enter Mr. Bush's top four secret Florida advisors.

No, they weren't the hottest of the hot Washington insiders and for that matter, they had no secret plan to once again steal the national election for the 2000 loser/winner here.

These four advisors indentities have been kept so secretive that we don't even know their names! Okay, so we don't know their last names.

We do know their first names, however, they're Charly, Frances, Ivan and Jeanne.

Before their arrival, starting on August 13th, a nice Kerry lead here has vanished as quickly as many of the homes that were destroyed in the wake of these storms.

No... hurricanes in themselves do not come through and blow people's brains out. What they can do, is open the door for the "compassionate" president to fly into town, spend ten minutes looking aimlessly around an affected area, promise aid, cheerfully wave at the homeless victims and exit.

While Bush might have never personally thought of these tragedies as a major campaign opportunity, his strategists are as not stupid as he is.

Since these hurricanes have left their wrath, Bush has been to Florida four times, surveying the damages. The first visit, he proposed $2 billion in Federal aid. The second time, he proposed another $2 billion. Third visit, $3 billion more. Finally, the latest trip, an addition $7 billion in Federal aid to Floridians in need. That's $14 billion in Federal aid proposed by Bush in less than two months!

Exactly where this money is going to come from hasn't quite been answered. More important, for now, it's all nothing more than a big, fat figure that flew from Bush's mouth like many other nonsensical words. For all intents and purposes, he might have well as said "uh... 95... uh, 100 'n' 52 kazillion, trillion dollars."

In other words, he can throw out whatever figure he likes (or comes to his pea-brain) and it's all as empty and meaningless as his proof of WMD in Iraq.

In the meantime, Kerry is totally handcuffed by the situation here. He can't come down here and criticize the president in our time of need. He can't claim that the president's proposals are totally unrealistic. He can't come down here and complain that Bush is just B.S.-ing citizens by throwing out meaningless numbers. Any one of those Kerry scenarios would be "un-sporting" and most inappropriate.

In the meantime, Bush has taken the lead here in recent polls.

Sometime after the first of the year after Bush has won the White House, empty-handed Floridians will be staring blankly toward Washington saying... "But Mr. Bush, you said that we'd see billions and billions of dollars in aid. Where is it?" I picture Bush getting that cocky, crap-eating look on his face and snickering back... "Gotcha!."

Yep, it's good to be the incumbant. And the more you can sell a lie, the better it gets for you.

The 2004 Debates

2004-09-27T22:19:00.000-04:00

The 2004 Presidential and Vice-Presidential debates are almost upon us. It's the moment that we've all been waiting for, or more precisely said, the moment that we've all been "dreaming" of.

I don't choose the word "dreaming" by any small coincidence.

The fact of the matter is, like many others have pointed out, these Presidential debates have been rigged before they start. There will be no outburst. There will be no real theatrics. There will be no excitement.

What we will have is two guys basically curtsying to one another, each delivering two minute after two minute scripted campaign ads, one after another. When their commercials are over, they'll both smile and shake hands with one another like they've been best friends for decades and admire one another greatly.

So what has happened to the "real" debates of old?

FLASHBACK: 1960

The first ever live televised Presidential debates in history. You had the hard-nosed Nixon on one side; the great orator John Kennedy on the other side. The end result? The polls said that Americans thought that hands down, Kennedy LOOKED better than Nixon. Kennedy won and no Presidential debate has been different since.

Imagine this:

Kerry: "Mr. Bush, you told bold face lies to the American people when you said that there was PROOF that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and Ameircans are tired of every single lie that you've told them before and after this personal fiasco that you've created under the guise of fighting terrorism."

Bush: "Now hold on just a dad-burn minute, you Northern 'elletist' (sic), liberal pig! Who you callin' a liar"?

Kerry: "You're the liar Mr. Bush! And you continue to lie today when you constantly claim that this miserable, ill-planned scam of a war is being fought successfully!"

Bush: "Well, (chuckles to himself in his usual manner) you hain't seen no terrorists in your backyard since we went to war with Iraq, now have ya? It's commie-pinko-liberals like you who take all the advantages that poor common folk like me provide for 'em!"

Kerry: "Mr. Bush, you're a hapless fool!"

Bush: "Bite me, jerk!"

Oh, how refreshing it would be to see this kind of volleying between two completely different types of politicians who are truly battling it out, ad-libbing line after line instead of looking and acting as though their both reading off of teleprompters.

(sigh)

No such luck, not this year or most likely, not in any year in the near future. Expect another mis-informmercial.

What we want is a real scrap-fest. What we'll likely get is a total crap-fest.

In A Perfect World

2004-09-25T15:21:00.000-04:00

In a "perfect world", every country would be a democracy.

All global citizens would have orderly elections to choose their leaders in fair and square, issue oriented and well-educated manner. There would be no insane butterfly ballots to confuse some of the elctorate, there would be no electoral colleges, there would be no voter fraud.

In that same perfect world, all countries would honor the decisions of each country's populace and abide by the leader's decisions.

In a perfect world, we'd all be rich, look like super-models, have big screen HD televisions and picture cell phones. In addition, the food supply would be abundant enough to feed all human beings and disease would be eradicated.

In a perfect world, differences in religion, race and cultures would be cherished as the uniqueness of human existence.

Sorry, this isn't a perfect world. Far from it.

I love democracy. Who can argue that in a free society that it's the only logical means to lead to a legitimate government sitting in power, making decisions for those who elected them?

In most cases in American history, it has served our country well. Of course, due to manipulation and consequences, it was allowed to fail us in the 2000 presidential election when a candidate received almost a million votes more than the man who took control of the White House.

Inspite of the that sad fact, democracy works well for us here in the U.S. and there's not a single native American who didn't at least primarily grow up with that system of government at least partially in place.

That said, I'm going to commit an "American sacrilege" by saying that democracy isn't for everyone across the globe and there's no better example than in Iraq.

Iraq has never been ruled by a democracy and I'm fairly certain that it will never be ruled by one (at least a successful one).

There are for too many fanatical religious sects in that country to ever allow one group to rule all sects.

Consider this analogy as it could theoretically apply to our own country.

In the south, you have fanatical Baptists who are dead certain that their beliefs are the only correct beliefs and that any other religion is just wrong. They will kill and die to prove that and to promote their own beliefs.

In New England, you have Roman Catholics who are as equally zealous as the Baptists in the south.

In the midwest, there are Protestants who mirror the Catholics and Baptists in honoring their own beliefs. Scattered around the rest of the U.S. are large areas of other religious sects... the Methodists, the Lutherans, etc.

Strangely enough, all of the sects are "Christians", but they all passionately hate each other's guts!

Would someone please tell me how a democracy possibly work in such a diverse country that's filled with such passionate zealots?

In Iraq, they may all be Muslims, but the many sects have been in serious conflict with each other for centuries.

But who cares about reality, right? Mr. Bush is going to "save" Iraq with "Operation Freedom", installing the almighy cure to any and all of the world's political governing needs: DEMOCRACY.

Advice to Mr. Bush in the future, think before you speak or act. Talk to some historians and advisors who might be able to dumb-sown world history to a level that you (or a 3rd grader) can understand. Better yet, pick up your copy of "My Pet Goat" and leave matters that you just clearly don't get to people with I.Q.'s over 95.

The chance of democracy successfully working in a divided country like Iraq is nothing more than a product of ignorance and arrogance and it was a totally shameless scam to try to sell that patriotic B.S. to Americans and the rest of the world!

A Talk With The Dead

2004-09-23T16:39:00.000-04:00

John Kerry desperately needs a visitation. He needs to confer with the dead... specifically, the ghost of H.H.H- Hubert Horatio Humphrey.

In 1968, then Vice-President Humphrey was the Democratic candidate for President and heir apparent to Lyndon Johnson. After a tumultuous convention, Humphrey inherited the right to the presidential throne, owing largely to the support of party loyalists. Eugene McCarthy had faded to Robert Kennedy and his murder largely left Hubert with the nomination.

But Humphrey also inherited something else. The war in Vietnam was going full-tilt and the McCarthy/Kennedy populist movement had been totally anti-war.

H.H.H. was in a lurch. Humphrey was in no way a "hawk"; quite to the contrary. He was privately nearly as anti-Vietnam war as either McCarthy or Kennedy, but coming out against it would be a square shot to the jaw of his boss, the President, whose support he had used to gain the nomination.

So during the summer months and well into the fall, Humphrey wore the albatross dutifully around his neck and walked the official Johnson line on Vietnam.

Richard Nixon, his Republican opponent seized the moment and declared himself the "anti-war candidate" (a bold face lie, but afterall, this is Nixon that we're talking about). You see, "Tricky Dick" knew a trend when he saw one.

By late, September of '68, Nixon had a 12% lead over Humphrey.

And then came the "miracle", the "enlightenment". A couple of weeks before the election, Hubert suddenly found his conscience and changed his official stance on the war.

The polls immediately reflected Hubert's change in policy. Within two weeks, Humphrey erased the seemingly unbeatable Nixon lead and pulled nearly even with the final outcome being pretty much of a dead heat.

Historians can only wonder what the outcome would have been if Humphrey had stood up... even just one week sooner.

The moral of the story is simple.

If Hubert Humphrey could come back from the grave, he would surely tell John Kerry to forget towing a patriotic line, forget the flip-flop labels. He'd tell John Kerry to look into his heart and mind, to what he knows is right! "John" he'd say, " it's the only way for those voters who might want desperately to know the real you to see what really matters to you."

If John Kerry wants to win this election, he needs an all-out assult against the war in Iraq! Call it for what it really is... a personal Bush vendetta that has left over a thousand American soldiers dead, left Osama bin Ladin stay a free man and has encouraged more terrorism.

Most Americans are now against this war. Kerry needs to step up and condemn it... NOW!

There's no sin in "flip-flopping" as long as you've landed on the correct side in the end.

P.S.- Happy Birthday, Bruce and thanks for your heart and help this year.

Silly Dan Rather

2004-09-22T15:20:00.000-04:00

Dan? What were you thinking? You got it wrong. Face it, you were duped.

Haven't you heard of the new school of journalism? It's the one that the Fox "News" Network subscribes to.

Dan, you tried to use what you thought were facts to back up your story. Haven't you heard, you don't need facts to back up anything anymore. All you have to do is blurt out four simple words: "some people are saying..." and then follow them with whatever accusation that you care to make.

That's the Fox path of journalism. Try it, Dan. You'd be surprised how many fools out there buy Fox's crap as being real and true!

Some people are saying that there's a double standard here.

That Does It! I'm Runnin'!

2004-09-20T18:41:00.000-04:00

Those of us here in the "Hurricane State" learned some interesting things in the past couple of weeks.

It all started with State Democrats going to court to have Reform Party candidate Ralph Nader's name deleted from Florida presidential ballots.

Their claim was simple. This year, the Reform Party is about as legitimate as a pitbull in a cock fight. This Reform Party has collected no signatures here to earn the right to be on the ballot (one way to do it). The party's national headquarters is run out of some multi-millionaire's house in Louisiana. The party treasurer admits that there's a whopping $18.00 in their checking account.

However, there is a huge, totally ridiculous loop hole in Florida's election laws.

You see... the Reform Party had a single "national" get together in Dallas that they laughingly called a "convention." 63 people attended and sometime during this enormous gathering, the majority (32 people?) decided to pick Ralph Nader as their candidate for president. I've yet to hear or read whether or not the chosen candidate attended or even knew about the event.

Still, the unquenchable ego of Mr. Nader allowed him to accept the distinguished honor, as the nominee of this "major" party.

Apparently, according to Florida law, if a party holds a convention, that qualifies that party's candidate to be added to the state's presidential ballot.

The Florida Supreme Court, yes, the same court that in 2000 was under attack by Republicans for ruling that the presidential votes should be re-counted in Florida, ruled that the "convention clause" met state requirements.

Nader's name will be on the ballot in November. (By the way, in 2000 the "leave matters of law to the states and local communities" hypocritical Republicans immediately appealed the Florida Supreme Court decision to re-count the votes to the Federal Supreme Court, who voted along Republican party lines to disallow the otherwise lawful and logical recounting, a move that guarantees them their rightfully damned place in American judicial history hell for all eternity).

So, I've decided that before the 2008 election rolls around, I'm going to have some friends over to my place (I'll make sure that at least one of them is from out-of-state so that it'll be a "national" event). I'll put up a banner on my front door reading "-insert a name -any name- National Party Convention" and take a picture of it.

At some point in time during the course of the gatheirng, I'll shout out "Who wants me to be their next president"? Since I'll have lots of beer and food available, I'm pretty certain that I'll get the majority to yell out my name.

Then, I'll pick one of my friends (oops... I mean "delegates") to be my running mate. Hell, I'll even open a bank account and deposit $20 - 10% more than the Reform Party.

That's that. Done deal!

So beware John Kerry, Hilary Clinton, John Edwards, Jeb Bush or Aww-nuld, the 2008 "Jeff For President" campaign is on it's way! Well, as least it'll be legally on it's way in Florida.

I can hardly wait wait to say those humble words... "I'm Jeff... I'm great... and I approve this message."

More Dumbing Down Of America

2004-09-18T13:10:00.000-04:00

The words "dumbing down" have been so often overused in recent years that they've become trite. Still, the reference to the meaning remains as pertinent today as the first time those words were used to describe the lack of interest in matters of importance and in no case is "dumbing down" more apparent than in politics.

Case in point, the military service record of Senator John Kerry vs. the lack of military service record of Mr. George W. Bush.

It's beyond astonishing to me that, first, any group could legitamately attack the military record of a distinguished Vietnam veteran. Secondly, these same Kerry-detractors somehow feel that the questionable, perhaps phantom military record of Bush deserves to be heralded as "heroic" and more commanding than Kerry's.

Of course, the premise is thoroughly laughable, which is why it proves that a large number of Americans have been dumbed-down to believe any and everything that they see in television ads.

The fact that hundreds of Republican delegates sported purple hearts on band-aids is the most blatantly disrespectful act against U.S. military veterans imaginable! It makes burning an American flag equivalent to sticking out your tongue at someone by comparison.

I am not a military veteran, but this show of disrespect by many despicable Republicans makes me truly outraged! You don't have to be a veteran to fully appreciate the sacrafices that they made for our country. Likewise, you don't have to have half a brain to besmirch ALL veterans.

Talk about "dumbing down."

Missing The Big Picture

2004-09-16T17:37:00.000-04:00

There seems to be a great number of Americans who are blinded by "patriotism."

To these citizens, any comment, written word or even inference that implies a disagreement with the "official government policy" is down right unpatriotic and disgraceful! If you're against our "war on terror" in Iraq, then you don't support out troops there... plain and simple!

The truth is quite to the contrary.

There's a world of difference between not supporting our troops in Iraq and not supporting our troops being in Iraq.

Personally, I believe that our attack on Iraq was both unnecessary and totally ill-advised. On the other hand, I've always hoped that each and every American soldier would return home without so much as a scratch. It's simply a case of policy vs. people. I abhor the policy, but wish no ill-will on the people who have been charged with upholding it.

I am also a strong believer in patriotism, but not blinding patriotism. Just because the man in the oval office thinks that a policy is best for America does not make it so. Automatically agreeing with the commander-in-chief's judgment calls is not patriotism, it's either being naive or ignorant or lazy.

Being a patriot in a true democracy demands that citizens attempt to learn as much as they can about key issues and policies and then make their own educated "patriotic" decisions.

If Osama Has A Car

2004-09-14T20:20:00.000-04:00

If Osama bin Ladin has a car, then there is likely a unique feature about it.

You see, he has a friend out there in the world who he privately thanks his god for at night when he prays. That's because his friend has done more to further his cause than anyone else on earth. In fact, he may well be planning on helping his friend advance by possibly unleasing an attack on American soil in the next five weeks.

For Osama knows that if there is another terrorist attack in America before November the 2nd of this year, that while some Americans will logically ask themselves, "Didn't Bush say that under his lead, we were winning the war on terrorism?", most will say, "This is a time when we need to stand behind our President, our Commander-In-Chief".

If there is an attack on Americna soil before the election, Bush will win the election handily. Osama bin Ladin knows this and has to be thinking about how his friend has helped his cause so dramatically in the past three years.

Yes, bin Ladin's car would no doubt have a unique feature, a bumper sticker with two names and a number on it... Bush-Cheney '04.

The #1 Terrorist In The World

2004-09-12T19:16:00.000-04:00

The #1 terrorist in the world has thousands upon thousands of loyal supporters organized in extensive networks who take his word as religion and will sacrafice their own lives at his command.

The #1 terrorist in the world has iron-clad beliefs that he will impose on others at any costs in regards to innocent lives or property regardless of their race or religion.

The #1 terrorist in the world has billions of dollars at his disposal to boister his plots and games.

The #1 terrorist in the world has caused the deaths of thousands of innocent citizens for his beliefs and ordered an unprovoked attack on a country that has left it in turmoil.

The #1 terrorist in the world has operatives and spies in every corner of the globe looking for flaws in security and defenses.

The #1 terrorist in the world is hated and feared by most decent world citizens. He knows this, but he doesn't care.

You know the man that I'm talking about.

His name is George W. Bush!

Hurricanes-4 (and hopefully...final)

2004-09-08T21:24:00.000-04:00

Three weeks after hurricane Charley messed up most of Central Florida, a new storm named "Frances" was born and soon threatened all of the state. Her name made me think about the whole idea of naming hurricanes.

If I've got this right, sometime in the 1930's or 40's, instead of calling these beasts by name, they were simply given code-like assignments, like "Tropical Storm 46B". Then, someone with the government decided to personalize them by assigning female names to them. In the 70's, it was probably the feminists who finally said, "Hey look, why should all of these horrible stroms be named after women?" and N.O.A.A. started rotating the names of hurricanes between male and female names.

But not all hurricane names stick. If a hurricane named, say "Joe" ends up not hitting landfall, thus not creating any damage, then it can be used again as a hurricane name in the future.

So, on Labor Day weekend 2004, Florida got "Frances". The name made me think. Why pre-name these storms? Why not call each one by the old standard (Tropical Storm 46B) until they take on a character and them name them appropriately.

In this way, a hurricane which is a catagory 5 level and is barrelling down on the Carolina coast could then be named, say... "Butch" or "Rocko"?

At the same time, a catagory 1 storm that is only going to bring heavy rain to the Mississippi coastline could be named, "Jennifer" or "Tiffany" or "FRANCES"!

So what name should this past week's hurricane Frances have rightfully been named? I thought about it for awhile and I think that I came up with the perfect name that the storm should have been called... "Hurricane Rosanne"!

You see, this storm was a big, fat, lumbering girl (please note: the word "bitch" was artfully avoided) who took her good, sweet time being as bothersome and abnoxious as possible. Not unlike a former television star, she was a slow-moving mess. It takes very little imagination in picturing Rosanne casually walking down the street, picking her nose and sneezing and slobbering all over any and everybody she came in contact with, causing them disgust and misery. And that's exactly what this storm did. She hung around like the unwanted, irritating house guest that you just can't wait to leave and lock the door behind. It took no less than 60 hours for her to move through!

Hurricane "Frances" should have, by her name, showered the Sunshine State with rose pedals. The more appropriately named Hurricane Rosanne would have done what Frances actually did... become a monster and crapped all of her venom everywhere she stubbornly and non-chalantly went!

Hurricanes-3

2004-09-07T16:50:00.000-04:00

Let me just say that I am NOT the superstitious type. Black cats, walking under ladders, ghosts and goblins just don't sit in harmony with my normally pragmatic, logical way of looking at life. Now, astrology is kind of a borderline topic with me just simply due to the coincidental nature, but I don't really buy into it that much.

The exception to all of this is the one or two days out of a normal calendar year that happen to read "Friday the 13th". For my way of thinking, I've just had too many unpleasant things happen on those evil days not to step back at this point in my life and wonder. From a car accident that totaled my vehicle, to throwing out my back for a week, to losing a job, Friday the 13th's have been rotten for me. It's not a serious enough phobia to make me take every one of them off from work and hide under my bed, but I approach each one now with an attitude of "Please, be careful today and watch for the worst".

Friday the 13th, 2004 was a fine example.

You see, there was this hurricane roughing up the Caribbean named "Charley". Not a big deal for us here in Central Florida because the N.O.A.A. Hurricane Center had long planned his path to skirt the Southern West Coast of Florida, making landfall near Tampa and then heading north toward the panhandle.

Unfortunately for us, Charley forgot to watch television that day. Instead, he flipped N.O.A.A. the bird and acted like that old commercial. "Charley! You just turned into a catagory 3 hurricane! What are you going to do next?" asks the off-screen voice. Charley's response... "I'm going to Disney World!"

He arrived at nightfall and my little Orlando suburb of Winter Park had a bulls-eye painted right on it's city limits. It seemed like half of the trees in the Greater Orlando area were either split in half or totally uprooted (you gotta love those Water Oaks). Hundreds of thousands of residents lost power, some for over a week. Debris was everywhere in the aftermath. Traffic signals were often sitting in the middle of the intersections that they were designed to control. Roofs were exposed, business signs were sprawed everywhere and major highway billboards looked as if King Kong had stepped on them, bending them totally over in a single effortless motion.

Still, the loss of power was by far the biggest headache for almost everyone.

Sure, you lose communication and your food spoils, but far more important, your means of controlling your livable habitat is lost. I couldn't consider living without heat in Colorado in January, but living without air conditioning in Florida for a week in August might be worse.

You see, not all that many years ago, Florida had a fraction of the population that it has now and there was a good reason for this. Nobody wanted to live in 90-95 degree heat with 100% humidity for seven months of the year with nothing but paddle fan to pretend to cool you down.

The wonderous invention of air conditioning changed all of that and since, millions have chosen Florida as their "promised land". It was the loss of A.C. during that powerless week that turned otherwise mild-mannered individuals into raving monsters.

A case in point was my good friend Tom who is normally as laid back as you get. But by the fourth day of living with no A.C., Tom could be found cursing (with no self-control over his choice of profanity) at the most innocent person for the most incedental thing. No one was safe... the grocery clerk, the gas station attendant, the girl at the pick-up window of the chicken place... me. Tom had it in for everyone and he certainly wasn't alone.

Another week or so of life in the "Sunshine State" with no air conditionaing would clearly turn this state into one big insane asylum!

Next up: "Hurricane-4- "Frances: the mis-named hurricane".

Hurricanes-2

2004-09-07T10:33:00.000-04:00

As it turned out, Hurricane Floyd stayed out-to-sea and really only created havoc on the coastal communities (especially Daytona Beach). Still, it was scary enough to contribute to my decision to move north, back to my hometown in Ohio in 2000 (Of course, a nice job offer there played a much bigger role in that decision).

When I returned to Florida in 2003, it was due to a job promotion and frankly, I would have had to have thought hard to even come up with the name "Floyd" as the 1999 hurricane.

But then came August 13th, 2004... Friday the 13th!!!

Hurricanes

2004-09-07T01:10:00.000-04:00

I met my first hurricane sometime in the mid-70's.

Maybe it was "David" or "Camille", I'm not really sure. I was married at the time and my wife and I were staying at her parents place at Sea Isle City, New Jersey, a quaint little beach town on the South Jersey Coast nestled between Ocean City and Avalon. It was an ocean-going hurricane that scraped by the coast some 500 miles or so out at sea but caused enough caution to lead to the evacuation of the Island, which we did. From the Vineland Mall, I remember watching the tremendous winds rip a full American flag on an outside pole to complete shreads in about 30 seconds. When we went back to the island that night after the brunt of the force had passed, the place was pretty messy, but not as badly damaged as we had feared.

It was all of the hurricane experience I ever hoped to see. I was lucky until the mid-90's. You see, I moved to Florida in 1980 to bask in the land of sunshine and palm trees. I loved it!

Florida has everything (if you're employed in a decent job) that a young, then-single guy could want. And I believed that too, even with all of the sometimes horrifying afternoon thunderstorms that rather quickly become part of your realistic routine in Florida soon after becoming a resident for awhile.

To tell you the truth, the "Sunshine State" has had it easy for a pretty long time in regards to hurricanes, if you discount the mighty "Andrew" that ravaged south Miami in 1992. For Orlandoans, hurricanes were primarily a curiosity or a passing sad thought, as in "Boy, I feel sorry for those poor folks in North Carolina. That's looks terrible for them; another bad hurricane up that way."

You see, Hurricane Donna in 1960 (20 years before my time as a Florida "native") was the last named storm to even hiccup in Central Florida. Then came Aaron in the mid 1990's. It passed over Orlando as a level 1 storm, but was still pretty impressive, though nothing to ooo and ahh about. A little flooding in the low areas, a few power lines down... nothing to get all that excited about.

And then came Hurricane Floyd in 1999. As it was barrelling up the East Coast of Florida, some models were projecting that it would hit landfall in Melbourne (about 70 miles southeast of Orlando) and then move straight up and through Orlando. It was a catagory 4 storm on the Saffier-Simpson scale (Catagory 5 ((like Andrew)) being the strongest). The fact of the matter was there were a lot of very scared folks in these parts... including me. To be continued.