The American Why

Well, I guess that's it then...we're all gonna die.

2009-07-01T09:11:00.003-04:00

Or so ya'd think! My god, Obama hasn't been in office a year yet and the sky is falling! He's a socialist, Muslim, not born in this country, democracy hatin', Iranian appeasin', America hater!

Whew! He sure has accomplished a bunch! You'd think he got us in an unnecessary war, buried us in debt, and trashed our reputation with the world or something...all the while blaming it on God.

Now I hate Dubya as much as a Republican hates Clinton...perhaps more, but I'm not sure that's possible...but geeze! It took me close to a year or so before I really got a head of steam going about the guy! I mean, I knew he was an idiot the first time he opened his mouth, but...These people are nuts! They can't stand the site of Obama (stringing whole sentences together) on TV!

oh, well!

Be interesting to see, besides Newt and Sarah, who the GOP will run against Mr. Obama. The ones they've been pushing for are dropping like flies, what with long walks on the Appalachian trail and what not...we shall see though...well...that's all I've got for now. This has sorta been a 'mercy post' made simply for the fact I've not posted in so long!

see ya's!

Wow. It's been a long time...

2009-04-13T13:27:00.003-04:00

...and a whole lot has happened. I'm sorry, but I lost my ability to bitch for a while. Well, bitch in print anyway! The whole political thing really got me down and I couldn't go on...so, I stopped writing. It was too depressing and you can only hit yourself on the head with a ball-peen hammer so many times before the side of your cranium crumbles like a drakes coffee cake.

So how's about that new guy we elected? Smart, funny, looks good in a bathing suit...I wonder if he'll be my friend? ;-)) It even appears that he can speak in full sentences! Wow! Seems to be making the best out of a particularly bad situation. I'm willing to give him a bit more than one hundred days to suss it all out. Heck, if you added up all of Bush's vacation time, and put it all up in front of his two terms, he wouldn't even be expected to work until next year! So, I'm gonna chill. And smile every time I hear the phrase 'President Obama.'

Union Leader actually printed my letter!

2007-04-23T12:38:00.000-04:00

The Manchester Union Leader, once called the "...worst newspaper in the U.S..." by Hunter Thompson, has actually printed one of my letters! (NH House to allow civil unions, found below) To say the Leader leans to the 'right' really is an understatement, and doubly so for it's op-ed page. So, without further adieu, here it is!

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Steve+McBrian%3a+Bigoted+homophobes+hide+behind+the+call+to+%27protect+marriage%27+in+NH&articleId=e6d83d96-5693-4d3b-89ba-a55568d1a654

Vermont Senate: Impeach the President

2007-04-20T12:09:00.000-04:00

By ROSS SNEYD Associated Press Writer

April 20,2007 | MONTPELIER, Vt. -- Vermont senators voted Friday to call for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, saying their actions have raised "serious questions of constitutionality."

The non-binding resolution was approved 16-9 without debate -- all six Republicans in the chamber at the time and three Democrats voted against it.

The resolution says Bush and Cheney's actions in the U.S. and abroad, including in Iraq, "raise serious questions of constitutionality, statutory legality, and abuse of the public trust."

"I think it's going to have a tremendous political effect, a tremendous political effect on public discourse about what to do about this president," said James Leas, a vocal advocate of withdrawing troops from Iraq and impeaching Bush and Cheney.
Vermont lawmakers earlier voted to demand an immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq in another non-binding resolution.

Democratic House Speaker Gaye Symington has kept a similar resolution from reaching the floor in her chamber. She argued that an impeachment resolution would be partisan and divisive and that it would distract Washington from efforts to get the United States out of Iraq, which she says is more important.

In the Senate, Republican Lt. Gov. Brian Dubie had opposed the resolution, but he was absent Friday. That left Democratic Senate President Pro Tem Peter Shumlin in charge, and he immediately took up the measure.

Forty towns voted in favor of similar nonbinding impeachment resolutions at their annual town meetings in March. State lawmakers in Wisconsin and Washington have pushed for similar resolutions.

Listen. Billy Pilgrim has become unstuck in time.

2007-04-12T08:58:00.000-04:00

Kurt Vonnegut died yesterday. A smart, funny, and cantankerous voice has been silenced. I will miss him.

"The only proof I need for the existence of god was music." - Kurt Vonnegut

A good quote

2007-04-11T09:09:00.000-04:00

"The cruelty of most people is lack of imagination, their brutality is ignorance."
~Kurt Tucholsky

In other words

2007-04-10T15:03:00.000-04:00

Can you beleive this guy? If he's riffing off the cuff, well, we know he's a terrible public speaker. But what if this was written for him? Good God, he's lost in a sea of idiots! Read on!
_____________________________________________________________

In other words
War Room, Salon.com - originally posted by Tim Grieve

From the Congressional Quarterly transcript of George W. Bush's talk today at an American Legion post in Fairfax, Va.:

"This is a -- this is an unusual era in which we live, defined on September the 11th, 2001. See, that's a date that reminding us the world has changed significantly from what we thought the world was ... My attitude about the world changed, and I know the attitude about the world from a lot of folks here in America's attitude changed ...

"I vowed that day that we would go on the offense against an enemy, that the best way to defeat this enemy is to find them overseas and bring them to justice so they will not hurt the folks here at home. In other words, we don't have the luxury of hoping for the best, of sitting back and being passive in the face of this threat. In the past, we would say oceans would protect us and, therefore, what happened overseas may not matter here at home.

"That's what changed on September the 11th. What happens overseas affects the security of the United States ...

"I vowed that, 'If you harbor a terrorist, you're equally as guilty as the terrorist.' That's a doctrine.

"In order for this country to be credible, when the president says something, he must mean it. I meant it. And the Taliban found out that we meant what we said. And therefore, we ended al-Qaida's safe haven in a failed state.

"The two points I want to make is, doctrine matters; and secondly, a failed state can lead to severe consequences for the American people ...

"In other words, there was reprisal ...

"In other words, the lack of security would have created an opportunity for extremists to move in ...

"In other words, in sending troops in, it is -- I recognize that this is more than a military mission ...

"In other words, this operation is just getting started ...

"In other words, part of the effort is not only to provide security to neighborhoods, but we're constantly training Iraqis so that they can do this job ...

"So, in other words, it's a combination of providing security in neighborhoods through these joint security stations, and training ...

"I'm always amazed at the men and women who wear our uniform. Last week, before I went down to Crawford -- for a snowy Easter, I might add -- I was in California at Fort Irwin. And I had a chance to visit with some who had just come back from Iraq and some who were going over to Iraq. And it just amazes me that these young men and women know the stakes. They understand what we're doing. And they have volunteered to serve.

"We're really a remarkable country and a remarkable military. And therefore we owe it to the families and to those who wear the uniform to make sure that this remarkable group of men and women are strongly supported -- strongly supported, by the way, during their time in uniform and then after their time in uniform through the Veterans Administration.

"I tried to put this war into a historical context for them. In other words, I told them that they're laying the foundation of peace. In other words, the work we're doing today really will yield peace for a generation to come."

-- Tim Grieve

UPDATED! The New Hampshire House has voted to allow civil unions for gay and lesbian couples.

2007-04-05T09:28:00.000-04:00

I’m going to jump right in, before a single letter is published regarding civil unions and label every one of you sitting at your computers preparing to decry the moral degradation of New Hampshire, bigoted homophobes. Ready? Here goes:

“You are all bigoted homophobes!” And now I’ll tell you why:

This has nothing to do with the church. Are you married? Your marriage has NOTHING to do with the church other than the fact that it may have taken place within one. The legally binding document in question, the one that makes you ‘married’ and grants those rights and privileges that come with marriage, is bestowed upon you via the civil laws of New Hampshire. Without that document you are not married in the eyes of the law. So don’t go there. No one is legally compelled to be married in a church in order to be considered ‘married.’ There are those that say ‘the Bible says homosexuality is wrong!’ For those of you who don’t know, the passage in question is located within Leviticus. So what about Leviticus? You either take it as whole cloth, or dismiss it outright. So, hopefully any of you who are using the passage from Leviticus to bolster your argument better not be fans of shellfish. It says that it’s wrong in Gods eye’s to eat shellfish in Leviticus.

This has nothing to do with ‘tradition.’ There were those who thought interracial marriage was an outrage, there were those that thought woman not having the vote, and not being allowed to own property, was good and traditional. There were those that traditionally thought the mentally ill were criminals. Humans have worshiped trees, rocks, and bodies of water; we used to pay homage to Zeus and a pantheon of other deities. Traditions change, we learn, we grow up.

I don’t want to hear a single one of you bring up the ‘sanctity of marriage.’ Don’t make me laugh! Have you SEEN the divorce stats lately? If you want to protect this pie in the sky ‘sanctity’ then perhaps you should make divorce illegal! Furthermore, I better not find out that any one of you have actually been divorced yourself, you hypocritical, bigoted, homophobes! If you’ve been divorced than you are automatically disbarred from this discussion, as you obviously have no respect for the ‘sanctity’ of marriage.

There’s also the sub-topic of marriage being for the procreation of children. This one is monumentally insulting to ANY married, childless, couple. So we’re rating marriages somehow now? My marriage is better than my friends’ marriage because I have a kid and they don’t? Their marriage is somehow ‘less’ sanctified than mine? Good luck with that one.

Lastly, what’s the real problem? Did a gay or lesbian person drop you on your head when you were a kid? Do they ‘scare’ you, or do you feel that they are somehow a threat to your sexuality, or man-hood, or woman-ness? Well, guess what? YOU will not be made to go to ‘gay/lesbian’ school. YOU will not be forced to participate in, or bear witness to any civil unions against your will. YOU and your family will not be rounded up and put into vast, Disney-like, ‘breeder camps’ in order to further the species. What’s left?

You, my friend, are a bigoted homophobe.

UPDATE!
4/16/07 - Looks like the Union Leader is actually going to print this!

Another day in the herd...

2007-04-04T08:34:00.000-04:00

I was flailing around yesterday trying to put into words my frustration and anger at the general publics willful ignorance and the dichotomy of people hating to be told what to do, while at the same time longing to be told what to think, when I found the following quote:

"It is infinitely easier to suffer in obedience to a human command than to accept suffering as free, responsible men." - Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Seems Herr Bonhoeffer nailed my whole essay in one sentence.

So who's playing politics with war funding? - By Tim Grieve

2007-04-03T10:48:00.000-04:00

The president goes before the cameras this morning to talk about the funding packages for Iraq and Afghanistan that have made it through both houses of Congress. Only that's not how he'll be describing them.

He'll argue that by passing supplemental funding bills he won't accept -- which is to say, ones that include timelines for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq -- Congress hasn't really passed any supplemental funding measure at all. As the White House puts it in today's "Morning Update," "it has now been 57 days and counting since the president submitted his emergency war supplemental funding request to Congress. While Democrats are trying to score political points, our military is preparing to make budget cuts forced by Congress' inability to pass a responsible troop funding bill that does not force retreat, handcuff our commanders, or include billions of dollars in wasteful pork spending."

A couple of points here.

First, if the administration were budgeting for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as if they were the ongoing things that they are, it would be including more than token amounts to fund them in its annual budget requests. Having chosen instead to get war funding through a seemingly unending string of "emergency" spending requests, the administration has all but invited down-to-the-wire scrambles on funding.

And maybe more to the point, this particularly funding package isn't really as down to the wire as the White House would like to suggest. The president has been painting dire pictures of deprivations for the troops if the supplemental spending bill isn't signed into law by April 15, and he's sure to do so again today. But as the Associated Press (Ed. note: see article printed below this one)reported last week, the Pentagon has the "bookkeeping flexibility" to keep the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan going as is until at least mid-July by simply shifting around money it already has. "The steps under consideration include borrowing from training, maintenance, personnel and procurement funds set to be spent later in the budget year, which runs through September," the AP explains. "They have become routine in recent years."

Routine? That's another way of saying "that's how the Pentagon did it last year." Bush didn't sign the 2006 version of the emergency supplemental appropriations bill for Iraq and Afghanistan until July 15, 2006 -- and that's when the Republicans controlled Congress. Did the White House respond with high-profile, live-TV projections of doomsday scenarios then? Not exactly. As the AP notes, the administration's protest then was pretty much limited to a single, "little-noticed letter from the White House budget office."

-- Tim Grieve

Real deadline for Iraq war money weeks beyond Bush's deadline By Andrew Taylor - AP

2007-04-03T10:41:00.000-04:00

WASHINGTON — The real deadline for Congress to provide more money for the war in Iraq is well beyond the April 15 deadline cited by President Bush and Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

The Pentagon can take several penny-pinching steps without harming troop readiness or other dire consequences predicted by the Bush administration until Congress actually comes up with the money.

Mid-April is about when $70 billion provided by Congress for the war will run out. After that, Pentagon accountants will move money around in the department's more than half-trillion dollar budget to make sure operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are not disrupted.

In fact, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, the Army has enough bookkeeping flexibility to pay for operations in Iraq well into July. Lawmakers and Capitol Hill staff aides view mid- to late May as the deadline for completing the war spending bill to avoid hardships.

The Army, Gates testified this past week, "will be forced to consider" altering training schedules for reserves and units to be deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as delays in repairing equipment and renovating barracks.

The steps under consideration include borrowing from training, maintenance, personnel and procurement funds set to be spent later in the budget year, which runs through September. They have become routine in recent years.

The money is repaid, usually with minimal disruption, when the president signs the war spending bill. But you might not realize that, given the recent rhetoric from the White House.

"If Congress does not approve the emergency funding for our troops by April the 15th, our men and women in uniform will face significant disruptions, and so will their families," Bush said March 23.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Friday, "Every day that the Congress fails to act on this request causes our military hardship and impacts readiness."

Such criticism was scarce when the GOP-controlled Congress was tardy in providing war dollars last year. At the time, there was a warning about "serious impacts" if the money was delayed further, but it came in a little-noticed letter from the White House budget office. Congress ignored the warning and went on vacation.

Last May and June, when $66 billion in Iraq and Afghanistan money was late, the Army faced a "near disastrous 'cash flow' experience," Gen. Peter Schoomaker, the Army's chief of staff, told Congress in February.

But there was no effect on troop readiness and training missions, nor delays in rotating troops out of Iraq. Instead, the Army froze civilian hiring, fired some temporary employees, stopped nonemergency travel and delayed purchases of information technology, Schoomaker said.

That is why many lawmakers view Bush's April 15 deadline more as a target date. The private signal many are getting from the Pentagon is that mid-May is when the money will be needed to avoid disrupting activities such as training missions.

"The president is once again attempting to mislead the public and create an artificial atmosphere of anxiety," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

The Congressional Research Service report said the Pentagon has only begun to start "reprogramming" money between various accounts to make sure overseas operations are not disrupted.

The Army, which has the biggest duty in Iraq, can last into the summer by using this transfer authority. That is especially true when shifting money set to be spent in the current budget year's fourth quarter, from July through September.

"They can move china around pretty much until we get to the fourth quarter," said Gordon Adams, a former Clinton administration budget official who specializes in defense issues. "So into June, while it's painful, it's possible."

Democratic Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, who heads a subcommittee that oversees defense spending, said the real deadline facing lawmakers is about June 1. That is in line with last year's experience, when a $94.4 billion bill providing war money did not pass Congress until early June.

Nonetheless, Democrats are a little nervous about leaving Washington on their long-scheduled Easter vacation without first delivering the $120 billion-plus Iraq spending bill.

Negotiators have not even meet to reconcile differences between House and Senate versions of the spending bill. Bush has pledged to veto the measure because it has timelines for a U.S. exit from Iraq and nonwar spending added by lawmakers.

Reid told colleagues on Thursday that aides from both parties and both the House and Senate will be working on a compromise during the congressional break.

The House, however, does not return until April 16. Even if a tentative deal is reached by then, getting it through the House and Senate and to Bush would take a week at a minimum. If Bush follows through on his veto, a new bill would have to be written and put to votes.

With that ticking clock in mind, the White House is taking a harder line with Congress now that Democrats are in control.

"Day 53 And Counting Since The President Submitted Emergency Supplemental Funding Request," read the subtitle of a White House news release Friday.

Added White House spokeswoman Perino: "The president was surprised to learn that Congress went on vacation today."

Copyright © 2007 The Seattle Times Company

The 'News'

2007-03-14T13:46:00.000-04:00

The other day I was relating a news item to a friend of mine, and when he was unable to immediately find it on the net, and was unaware of this story (a story that is related to the field he works in), he made the comment, “where did you see the article?” I told him the source and then he said “well, I know what kind of news you get” or something like that. Basically implying that the ‘news’ I hear, read, or watch is somehow inferior or, more likely, tainted with some slant.

Now, before I go on, it must be stated that this person and I don’t see eye to eye politically. But, fuck it, lets address the political aspects of it and get it out of the way so I can get to what’s really under my craw.

Firstly the statement reeks of political indoctrination, and secondly, it really, REALLY pisses me off. A statement like that is the worst kind of politics. It allows the speaker to easily dismiss anything said contrary to his opinions and, at the same time, provides the psychological balm of ‘I can ignore this…it’s just more ranting from the ‘liberal media’…mmm…’

But what gets me, is that this guy, and I’m guessing about 59,054,087 Americans as well, hardly read or watch any news at all! In this particular case I would guess this guy MAYBE glances at the sports scores in ‘the paper’ and MAYBE watches a little network, or local news while getting ready for work in the morning or winding down at night.

Not really tearing up the information highway, but pretty average news intake I would say. Now lets contrast his level of news intake with mine.

I read Salon.com, and articles from a variety of newspapers like the NY Times, Washington Post, Christian Science Monitor, Wall St. Journal, etc. every day. I also scan the headlines from the major wire services. I also listen to NPR pretty much all day (the local affiliate, NHPR, is news and talk all day), and watch the local and national news on TV every night.

As I re-read this you certainly can accuse me of being boring, but not un-informed.

I would also like to point out that my news comes from relatively ‘middle-of-the-road’ sources. I don’t do the hysterical-lefty-liberal leaflets or blogs and stay away from hand-ringing-rightwing-religious radio or whatever. And just because I happen to read something on Salon on Tuesday and it doesn’t hit the network news until the next Wednesday, doesn’t mean my news is any less trustworthy. And what’s more, at the end of the day pretty much EVERYBODY gets their news from the same three or four wire services anyway! Sure, depending on whether it’s ABC News; “…Al Gore won an Oscar last night…” or Fox News; “…Al Gore seen with short naked man…” they spin it this way or that, but it’s essentially the same ‘raw’ information.

Which is why I like reading the wires! It’s how I like my information: raw! Mmm…wire sashimi!

What’s my point? It pisses me off when people who are woefully under informed accuse me of being ignorant or deluded by overly slanted news.

An interesting example of what I’m talking about appeared in a recent edition of that bastion of lefty-liberalism, Newsweek. In a country whose political rhetoric centers around talk of ‘Christian values', ‘family values', and ‘Judeo-Christian morals', in a country where more than 90% of the people say the believe in God, very few could even name the first five books of the Old Testament. Even in multiple-choice form! Yet, suddenly everyone seems to be all about ‘Gods Will’ and ‘It Says In the Bible’ and my personal favorite, ‘What Would Jesus Do?’

Fucking puke on yer shoes ya ignorant git! Or maybe not…maybe he'd puke on my shoes. 'Course I'm not the one dancing around like a little dog yapping "Hey Jesus! Wha-cha doin'? Hey Jesus! Where-we-goin'? Suuuure do like ya, I do, Jesus!" Damn that's annoying...

So, I’ll try and keep my mouth shut about shit that I know nothing about, and I kindly ask the rest of you to do the same. Oh, and try to become better informed would ya? Read a fucking newspaper or something…read a book! Anything!

M‘kay?

UPDATE: 'That guy' in Indiana

2007-03-12T14:31:00.000-04:00

I, like many others, became very caught up in the last election cycle. But in all the excitement, I forget to see how it turned out for 'that guy' in Indiana.

So...Steve McBrian, 'that guy' in Indiana running for state rep of district 74, got his gun-toting-conservative-republican-ass handed to him in the November elections! Yeah!

(Awww, geeze! That’s too bad! M.C. Steve is really broken up over this one, I tell ya…)

Rep. Russ Stilwell was the guy who handed Mr. McBrian his ass, and I congratulate him on a fine ass handing! Good work! Now don’t fuck up!

There's this woman...

2007-03-12T14:11:00.000-04:00

Well, I don't know if the word 'woman' can apply, as there is some question as to whether she’s actually a living ‘human being.’

That nit picking detail aside, there’s this woman. And she says, quite often it turns out, very hateful and untrue things about other people. I have some phrases and words that I would like to use in relation to this woman, but I’m afraid that some of our reading audience might find them distasteful, or even offensive.

With that thought in mind I’ll attempt to use the ‘*’ key to help ease the threat of offense. Here goes!

A**e C**lter is a vile contemptible bitch. A**e C**lter talks so much shit her teeth are brown. A**e C**lter should be striped naked, beaten with rubber hoses, threatened with dogs, made to renounce any enjoyment she gained from listening to the Grateful Dead (yeah, she says she was a fan in college), and set adrift on a (swiftly melting) ice pack with a starving polar bear. Finally, the vile offensive words A**e C**lter should be stricken from the English language for all time. Only to be used in the most extreme cases such as, “that Dubya really is a A**e C**lter!”

They're Baa-aack!

2007-03-12T14:06:00.000-04:00

I'm very excited to say that the wife and I are going to see NRBQ in April! After almost three years with narry a show, they're back! Who knows if they're BACK, back...but they're doing two shows with current guitarist Johnny Spampinato and former guiatarist Al Anderson. I've never seen Al either with the band or by himself, so I'm pretty excited for this. Should be fun!

Gingrich: I cheated on my wife during the Clinton impeachment - by Tim Greive

2007-03-09T09:55:00.000-05:00

In a radio interview with Focus on the Family's James Dobson, thrice-married Newt Gingrich acknowledges that he was having an extra-marital affair at exactly the same time he was leading the House of Representatives through the impeachment of Bill Clinton.

Hypocrite? Not me, says Newt.

"I drew a line in my mind that said, 'Even though I run the risk of being deeply embarrassed . . . I have no choice except to move forward and say that you cannot accept . . . perjury in your highest officials,'" he says.

Elsewhere in the interview, Gingrich says he doesn't believe in "situational ethics."

___________________________________

Reaction to above - by M.C. Steve

What the fuck? Why haven't the gods of hypocrisy come down and pulled Newts scrotum out through his fucking eyeholes? God help me. Yeah, you heard right, me! I’m done with the rest of ya. Y’all are on yer own.

(I told you about the 'pop' vs. 'open' a vein thing, yeah? This is what I’m talking about.)

Nobody cares, nobody pays any attention and these fucking morons continue to shape the ‘opinion’ of the dumb-ass herd of drooling morons we refer to as the ‘electorate.’ Not only is Newt a terrible historian (check out his ‘historical’ books), he’s a liar and a hypocrite! (Oh, and he has stupid hair, and he’s fat, and his mother dresses him funny! So there! Oh! OH! Wait! He’s also soft on terror and doesn’t support the troops! See, I’m-a-good learner!)

AAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH!!

Fuck you people up your stupid fucking ass. And yes, I’m talking to you, the ‘general public’ not just politicians. Politicians can only get away with what we, the herd, let them. I wish I could say y’all get what you deserve, but ‘the herd’ tends to ruin it for all of us. So I’ve GOT to care.

Shit…

Fucking wake up people!!

Sigh.

Long time, no blog.

2007-03-08T10:58:00.000-05:00

Wow. So much has happened since I wrote my last little diatribe about the page diddler…what was his name? Foley? And Delay, and Abrahmhoff, and Scooter, and that guy over at the CIA who was just busted, along with a college buddy, for contract shenanigans, the Walter Reed fiasco, the ‘surge’, the support ‘surge’, and the MP ‘surge’, Iran, and the invincible Dick Cheney…heh, heh…whoa-yeah, good times!

Then there was the election.

Well, I tell ya, I had to give the political thing a rest or I was gonna pop a vein…or open one. Am I happy now the Democrats are ‘in charge?’ Happier, maybe…maybe, we’ll see wont we?
I’ll try not to let five months go by with no word again. Sorry blog. And I’d like to apologize to my good friend SJM in NH who reads this blog avidly…and most likely solely! I’ll try to be better.

Good Family Values...

2006-10-03T09:33:00.000-04:00

Ya gotta love it when the mask is pulled away! There’s nothing better than seeing a hypocrite have his face pushed in shit…(squish!)…ahh…

I take back being angry with Speaker Hastert! Through his and Mr. Reynolds inaction, they've made my week! And Mr. Foley...well, what can one say? The phrase 'sick fuck' comes to mind...but what timing! AND Foley's name stays on the ballot in Florida!

Now, if the Democrats can take the house, make Nancy Pilosi (sp?) Speaker, and arrange a convenient 'accident' for the V.P. and his boss...

"To Dream The Impossible Dream!"

One more thing...

2006-10-02T22:43:00.000-04:00

You know they say that all this stuff stays on the net forever. And they say I should be careful whom* you say things about and what** one says on the internet. well, as a great song writer once said; I didn't mean to say it, but I meant what I said!

*Tim Powell you bat-shit-crazy-mother-fucker-you!

**FUCK YOU!

Oh yeah...

2006-10-02T22:26:00.000-04:00

And as my good friend, and cousin, Brian just reminded me; what the fuck does that all matter when we're all probably gonna be dead 'cause of global warming!

It’s true!

The fuckin’ ocean is gonna get too warm, and the Gulf Stream is gonna STOP and then…

I should actually take heart in this revelation...after all, when we're all dead there will BE no politics, no politicians, no stupid people...cause y'all, and myself, will be takin' a deep-six holiday!

He also mentioned that I should cut back on the booze and stop fornicating with woodland creatures and take a fuckin' break...he's right of course...

Someone bring me that cute deer! And bring me a god-damned cocktail!

My 'Catch-22'

2006-10-02T15:30:00.000-04:00

I’ve been in a pretty cranky mood lately…

And I find myself in a catch-22.

You see, I’m MONUMENTILLY pissed off!

…at Republicans, Democrats, the President, the Vice President, Carl Rove, Speaker Hastrit (sp?), Arlen “I aint got no balls!” Specter, (tentatively) the Supreme Court (I’m watching you…), the Green Party (way to give us Bush ya bunch of fucking-Nader-voting-tree-hugging-dumb-asses! I could of, and did, tell ya so!), Hillary Clinton (for even THINKING of running for pres. If the Dems nominate her they have a king-hell death wish and are now working openly for the opposition! And I LIKE Hillary.), some guy running for the Senate in Indiana on the Republican ticket named Steve McBrian (no-shit-swear-to-dog! Go google ‘em!), the war in Iraq and Afghanistan (coming to the theater of Iran soon!), Jews (hard-headed), Palestinians (hard-headed pawns being used to further everyone’s cause except their own), Christians of all ilk (among numerous other things; the bible is the word of god? Are you high or just fucking stupid? Oh, yeah, and the worlds only a few thousand years old (Fossil record? What fossil record?), and yeah yer right! Life is too complex to come into being by itself; it must have been the hand of god! Yeah, and rain is god crying and earth quakes are from god eating too many raw onions…), organized religion in general, Ann (the cunt) Coulture (may she drown in the un-deodorized sweat of a thousand dead-heads…in fact lets tie her back to back with Bill O’Riley and sink the both of them with the corpses of Kenny G and Michael Bolton! If she sinks, it’ll prove once and for all she’s not a witch!), the pope (c’mon you uncle-fester-looking-motherfucker…you should know better), etc., etc., etc., etc.

And I think I have very few solutions to choose from.

One: to move to a different, only slightly saner, country. First off, I don’t know where that might be and secondly, it’s not likely, and well, fuck that! I like it here! Really!

Two: to climb into a clock tower with a case of vodka, a case of ammunition, and a big fucking gun and take some of these diarrhea inspiring motherfuckers with me. But, frankly, I'm too chicken-shit for that, or…

Three: perhaps, turn myself into another stupid American automaton and stop reading, watching or listening to any sort of ‘news,’ vote the ‘party’ line and start watching American Idle. No, I didn’t miss-spell it…

And that’s where the catch comes. I can relieve myself of my angst by turning myself into the type of person that inspires my angst in the first place!

...and I just CAN'T start watching American Idle. I'd go on, but you either know what I'm talking about, or you're a fan!

Sen. Patrick Leahy - Speaking before the Senate Judiciary Committee

2006-09-27T08:55:00.000-04:00

Sen. Patrick Leahy is the ranking Democratic member of the Judiciary Committee. This is the text of his statement to the panel from Monday, September 25, 2006.

For weeks now, politicians and the media have breathlessly debated the fine points and political implications of the so-called "compromise" on proposed trial procedures for suspected terrorists. In doing so, we have ignored a central and more sweeping issue. Important as the rules for military commissions are, they will apply to only a few cases. The administration has charged a total of 10 people in the nearly five years since the president declared his intention to use military commissions, and it recently announced plans to charge 14 additional men. But for the vast majority of the almost 500 prisoners at Guantánamo, the administration’s position remains as stated by Secretary Donald Rumsfeld three years ago: It has no interest in trying them.

Today we are belatedly addressing the single most consequential provision of this much-discussed bill, a provision that can be found buried on page 81 of the proposed bill. This provision would perpetuate the indefinite detention of hundreds of individuals against whom the government has brought no charges and presented no evidence, without any recourse to justice whatsoever. That is un-American, and it is contrary to American interests.

Going forward, the bill departs even more radically from our most fundamental values. It would permit the president to detain indefinitely—even for life—any alien, whether in the United States or abroad, whether a foreign resident or a lawful permanent resident, without any meaningful opportunity for the alien to challenge his detention. The administration would not even need to assert, much less prove, that the alien was an enemy combatant; it would suffice that the alien was "awaiting [a] determination" on that issue. In other words, the bill would tell the millions of legal immigrants living in America, participating in American families, working for American businesses, and paying American taxes, that our government may at any minute pick them up and detain them indefinitely without charge, and without any access to the courts or even to military tribunals, unless and until the government determines that they are not enemy combatants.

Detained indefinitely, and unaccountably, until proven innocent. Like Canadian citizen Maher Arar. As the Canadian government recently concluded in a detailed and candid report, there is no evidence that Mr. Arar ever committed a crime or posed a threat to U.S. or Canadian security. Yet, while returning home to Canada from a family vacation, he was detained, interrogated, and then shipped off to a torture cell in Syria by the Bush-Cheney administration. While the Canadian government has now documented that the wrong thing was done to the wrong man, the Bush-Cheney administration has, as usual, evaded all accountability by hiding behind a purported state secrets privilege.

The administration’s defenders would like to believe that Mr. Arar’s case is an isolated blunder, but it is not. Numerous press accounts have quoted administration officials who believe that a significant percentage of those detained at Guantánamo have no connection to terrorism. In other words, we have been holding for several years, and intend to hold indefinitely without trial or any recourse to justice, a substantial number of innocent people who were picked up by mistake in the fog of war.

The most important purpose of habeas corpus is to correct errors like that. It is precisely to prevent such abuses that the Constitution prohibits the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus "unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." I have no doubt that this bill, which would permanently eliminate the writ of habeas for all aliens within and outside the United States whenever the government says they might be enemy combatants, violates that prohibition. And I have no doubt that the Supreme Court would ultimately conclude that this attempt by the Bush-Cheney administration to abolish basic liberties and evade essential judicial review and accountability is unconstitutional.

It would be utterly irresponsible for Congress to neglect our oath to the Constitution and the American people and pass this unconstitutional legislation in the hope that the court will ultimately rescue us from our folly. Doing so would only undermine the War on Terror by prolonging the legal limbo into which the administration has dragged the entire regime of military detentions.

We should have put military detentions on a solid legal footing and established military tribunals four years ago. I introduced a bill in 2002 to authorize military commissions. So did Senator Specter. But the White House and the Republican leadership ignored us, choosing instead to roll the dice and hope that it could prevail on its radical go-it-alone theories of presidential power.

The Bush-Cheney administration got a rude awakening earlier this year in the Hamdan case. The Supreme Court—which happens to include seven Republican appointees in its nine justices—affirmed what we had told it all along: when the terrorists brought down the Twin Towers on 9/11, they did not bring down the rule of law on which our system of government is founded. They did not supplant our republican form of government with one in which an unaccountable executive can imprison people forever without trial or judicial review.

On its way to losing that case, the administration wasted four years. Actually, it did more than waste four years. Just yesterday the press reported what the administration has been misrepresenting to the American people and what was apparently confirmed in a National Intelligence Estimate: That the invasion and continuing U.S. military presence in Iraq has created a new generation of anti-American terrorists, that the terrorist threat against the U.S. has grown and, according to intelligence officials, that the Iraq war has "made the overall terrorism problem worse." Meanwhile, having failed to try a single detainee, and having failed to secure a conviction of a single terrorist offense, the administration is demanding that we pass a bill it drafted last week before the end of this week.

The administration’s sudden and belated haste to move ahead makes no sense, other than as a matter of crass electoral politics. We are taking a first look at a bill that the administration claims is central to the decisive ideological battle of the 21st Century, a bill that would suspend habeas corpus for the first time since the Civil War, and a bill that, if enacted, will almost certainly be used by America’s enemies as a pretext for the torture and indefinite detention without judicial review of Americans abroad.

If the administration and the Republican leadership of the Senate believe that suspending the writ is constitutional and justified, they should grant the joint request that Chairman Specter and I made last week for a sequential referral of the bill. Constitutional issues involving the writ of habeas corpus are at the center of this Committee’s jurisdiction. We can and should review this legislation thoroughly, and if a few habeas petitions are filed in the meantime, we will not lose the War on Terror as a result of those filings. If this Congress votes to suspend the writ of habeas corpus first and ask questions later, liberty and accountability will be the victims.

On a personal note...

2006-09-26T14:53:00.000-04:00

Just to make myself feel better, I'd like to state for the record that Tim Powell has apparently lost his mind!

His apparent insanity aside, Tim Powell is great man. It seems he thinks that I'm pretty great too, although you'll see that he's shy about expressing his true feelings for me. I'm such an important part of his existence that he seems to think that I am personally responsible for his current predicament regarding a piece of equipment he owns.

Aww, geeze Tim, your making me blush!

Let me show you what I mean!

He has informed me via two messages and a phone 'conversation' that I am:
a. Not a man
b. A 'motherfucker'
c. A 'piece of shit'
d. Some other stuff along the same lines

I was also informed that I could:
a. Go to hell
b. Fuck off

Wow huh?

"He likes me! He really, really likes me!"

Oddly enough he called me first. Before the two messages and the phone 'conversation,' he called for...get this...'help!'

Tim Powell is a beautiful and humble man. I think I may be falling in love. I've never had feelings like this for a man before.

(Somebody hold me!)

Well, it's plain that I should run right out and do everything I can to help 'ol Tim Powell now! Today!

I mean, who wouldn't?

You really can see why he's so popular! His exemplary use, and re-use, and re-use, and re-use of the word 'motherfucker' in our 'conversation' really sets him apart, and elevates Tim Powell to the level of some of our greatest orators.

Tim Powell possesses great personal magnetism and charm; he's a leader of men, a bug-zapper in the darkness if you will. Tim Powell is a man other men can (and do) admire! Manly men like Richard Chamberlin, Harvey Fierstein, and Sandra Bernhard.

What’s more, Tim Powell is kind. You can tell because, whenever I tried to say anything, he would just keep shouting 'FUCK YOU' into the phone. That's love folks, that's real love!

(I've gotta take a break, I'm getting a bit misty...)

I can't take it anymore! I've got to shout it to the rooftops! I LOVE TIM POWELL! I want to spend the rest of my life with Tim Powell! I want to share my life, my santorum (especially my santorum!), with Tim Powell! I've got to say it here before my insides explode!

TIM POWELL IS MY LOVER!!!

Ok?

Hey Tim?

You still there my little santorum slurping stud muffin?

Hack the vote? No problem - By Brad Friedman

2006-09-14T09:04:00.000-04:00

Diebold, the e-voting-machine maker, has long sworn its systems are secure. Not so, says a new Princeton study. Converting votes from one candidate to another is simple.

Sep. 13, 2006 Having reported extensively on the security concerns that surround the use of electronic voting machines, I anxiously awaited the results of a new study of a Diebold touch-screen voting system, conducted by Princeton University. The Princeton computer scientists obtained the Diebold system with cooperation from VelvetRevolution, an umbrella organization of more than 100 election integrity groups, which I co-founded a few months after the 2004 election. We acquired the Diebold system from an independent source and handed it over to university scientists so that, for the first time, they could analyze the hardware, software and firmware of the controversial voting system. Such an independent study had never been allowed by either Diebold or elections officials.

The results of that study, released this morning, are troubling, to say the least. They confirm many of the concerns often expressed by computer scientists and security experts, as well as election integrity activists, that electronic voting -- and indeed our elections -- may now be exceedingly vulnerable to the malicious whims of a single individual.

The study reveals that a computer virus can be implanted on an electronic voting machine that, in turn, could result in votes flipped for opposing candidates. According to the study, a vote for George Washington could be easily converted to a vote for Benedict Arnold, and neither the voter, nor the election officials administering the election, would ever know what happened. The virus could also be written to spread from one machine to the next and the malfeasance would likely never be discovered, the scientists said. The study was released along with a videotape demonstration.

"We've demonstrated that malicious code can spread like a virus from one voting machine to another, which means that a bad guy who can get access to a few machines -- or only one -- can infect one machine, which could infect another, stealing a few votes on each in order to steal an entire election," said the study's team leader, Edward W. Felten, professor of computer science and public affairs at Princeton.

The Princeton study is the first extensive investigation of the Diebold AccuVote DRE (Direct Recording Electronic) system, which is employed in Maryland, Florida, Georgia and many other states. Such touch-screen voting systems made by Diebold will be in use in nearly 40 states in this November's elections.

Felten and a small group of Princeton computer scientists implanted a nearly undetectable virus in a Diebold voting system. They managed to alter a voter's ballot -- after it had already been confirmed and cast -- and flip a vote to a candidate other than the one the voter had intended. As Felten explained, "We've also found how malicious code could also modify its own tracks [afterward] and remain virtually undetectable by elections officials. It wouldn't be found in the standard tests performed either before or after an election."

The Princeton report shows that a virus could be inserted onto a Diebold voting system by a single individual "with just one or two minutes of unsupervised access to either the voting machine or the memory card," which is used with the system to store ballot definitions and vote tabulations.

The question of unsupervised access to voting systems has long been at the core of the debate over the use and security of electronic voting machines. That debate reached a boiling point in California's June election, when programmed, election-ready Diebold voting machines were discovered to have been sent home overnight with poll workers on so-called sleepovers, in the days and weeks prior to the election, by San Diego County's registrar of voters. Poll workers in the county, and many others around the country, are given voting machines by elections directors to keep at home prior to the election. They are then deployed on election morning at polling sites. The vulnerabilities to hacking, however, in the newer electronic voting systems have made that practice a topic of great concern. Earlier this year the federal certification body for e-voting systems issued a memorandum requiring greater security for such systems.

As a result of the security breaches via the voting machine "sleepovers" in San Diego County, the special election between Francine Busby and Brian Bilbray for the House seat of jailed Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham was contested by voting rights advocates. The legal suit charged that unrestricted access to the machines by poll workers compromised the election and violated both state and federal law.

David Jefferson, a lead voting systems technology advisor for the California secretary of state and a computer scientist at Livermore National Laboratory, told "The PBS News Hour" just after California's primary election, "You can affect multiple machines from a single attack; that's what makes it so dangerous."

Jefferson's comment was based on a report by independent computer scientist Harri Hursti and the firm Security Innovation after a recent test of the systems in Emery County, Utah. Last March, the experts gained access to a Diebold touch-screen system in the county. Their report revealed that a "feature" built into Diebold's touch-screen system could allow an individual to overwrite the election software, operating system and computer firmware with just a minute or two of unsupervised access to the machines -- no password necessary.

Electronic voting systems such as those made by Diebold and a handful of other private corporations now dot the nation's electoral landscape. While virtually all of the systems currently set for use this November have been found to be vulnerable to hacking, tampering, inaccuracy and error, various elements of the Diebold voting systems have found their way into more independent hands-on investigations. A recent landmark report issued by New York University's Brennan Center for Justice detailed some 120 threats to e-voting security across all such systems.

The computer scientists and security experts who issued the Emery County report have not been alone in pointing out vulnerabilities in the Diebold touch-screen system. Johns Hopkins computer scientist and elections-security expert Aviel Rubin was one of the original voices to declare the dangers of Diebold's systems. He analyzed source code from its voting machines that was left, by the company, unsecured on a public Internet site. He recently told Newsweek: "If Diebold had set out to build a system as insecure as they possibly could, this would be it."

Diebold has repeatedly disputed the findings then as speculation. But the Princeton study appears to demonstrate conclusively that a single malicious person could insert a virus into a machine and flip votes. The study also reveals a number of other vulnerabilities, including that voter access cards used on Diebold systems could be created inexpensively on a personal laptop computer, allowing people to vote as many times as they wish.

Diebold spokesman David Bear did not return Salon's calls for comment on the Princeton study. In the past, he has denied that such security concerns are notable.

"[Our critics are] throwing out a 'what if' that's premised on a basis of an evil, nefarious person breaking the law," Bear told Newsweek after the March Emery County study. "For there to be a problem here," he further explained to the New York Times, "you're basically assuming a premise where you have some evil and nefarious election officials who would sneak in and introduce a piece of software … I don't believe these evil elections people exist."

While previous reports on security in electronic voting systems examined a limited set of vulnerabilities, the Princeton study looked at the entire voting machine system over an extended period. "These are, by far, the most serious electronic vulnerabilities that have been published to date," Felten said.

How bad is he? By Sidney Blumenthal

2006-09-12T14:43:00.000-04:00

Bush ran as a moderate, tacked right and governed ineffectually -- before 9/11. Since then he's become the most radical American president in history -- and arguably the worst.

Sep. 12, 2006 - No one predicted just how radical a president George W. Bush would be. Neither his opponents, nor the reporters covering him, nor his closest campaign aides suggested that he would be the most willfully radical president in American history.

In his 2000 campaign, Bush permitted himself few hints of radicalism. On the contrary he made ready promises of moderation, judiciously offering himself as a "compassionate conservative," an identity carefully crafted to contrast with the discredited Republican radicals of the House of Representatives. After capturing the Congress in 1994 and proclaiming a "revolution," they had twice shut down the government over the budget and staged an impeachment trial that resulted in the acquittal of President Clinton. Seeking to distance himself from the congressional Republicans, Bush declared that he was not hostile to government. He would, he said, "change the tone in Washington." He would be more reasonable than the House Republicans and more moral than Clinton. Governor Bush went out of his way to point to his record of bipartisan cooperation with Democrats in Texas, stressing that he would be "a uniter, not a divider."

Trying to remove the suspicion that falls on conservative Republicans, he pledged that he would protect the solvency of Social Security. On foreign policy, he said he would be "humble": "If we're an arrogant nation, they'll view us that way, but if we're a humble nation, they'll respect us." Here he was criticizing Clinton's peacemaking and nation-building efforts in the Balkans and suggesting he would be far more restrained. The sharpest criticism he made of Clinton's foreign policy was that he would be more mindful of the civil liberties of Arabs accused of terrorism: "Arab-Americans are racially profiled in what's called secret evidence. People are stopped, and we got to do something about that." This statement was not an off-the-cuff remark, but carefully crafted and presented in one of the debates with Vice President Al Gore. Bush's intent was to win an endorsement from the American Muslim Council, which was cued to back him after he delivered his debating point, and it was instrumental in his winning an overwhelming share of Muslims' votes, about 90,000 of which were in Florida.

So Bush deliberately offered himself as an alternative to the divisive congressional Republicans, his father's son (at last) in political temperament, but also experienced as an executive who had learned the art of compromise with the other party, and differing from the incumbent Democratic president only in personality and degree. Bush wanted the press to report and discuss that he would reform and discipline his party, which had gone too far to the right. He encouraged commentary that he represented a "Fourth Way," a variation on the theme of Clinton's "Third Way."

In his second term, Clinton had the highest sustained popularity of any president since World War II, prosperity was in its longest recorded cycle, and the nation's international prestige high. Bush's tack as moderate was adroit, shrewd and necessary. His political imperative was to create the public perception there were no major issues dividing the candidates and that the current halcyon days would continue as well under his aegis. Only through his positioning did Bush manage to close to within just short of a half-million votes of Gore and achieve an apparent tie in Florida, creating an Electoral College deadlock and forcing the election toward an extraordinary resolution.

Few political commentators at the time thought that the ruthless tactics used by the Bush camp in the Florida contest presaged his presidency. The battle there was seen as unique, a self-contained episode of high political drama that could and would not be replicated. Tactics such as setting loose a mob comprised mostly of Republican staff members from the House and Senate flown down from Washington to intimidate physically the Miami-Dade County Board of Supervisors from counting the votes there, and manipulating the Florida state government through the office of the governor, Jeb Bush, the candidate's brother, to forestall vote counting were justified as simply hardball politics.

The Supreme Court decision in Bush v. Gore, by a five to four margin, perversely sanctioned not counting thousands of votes (mostly African-American) as somehow upholding the equal protection clause of the 15th Amendment (enacted after the Civil War to guarantee the rights of newly enfranchised slaves, the ancestors of those disenfranchised by Bush v. Gore). In the majority opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia argued that counting votes would cast a shadow on the "legitimacy" of Bush's claim to the presidency. The Court concluded that the ruling was to have applicability only this one time. By its very nature, it was declared to be unprecedented. Never before had the Supreme Court decided who would be president, much less according to tortuous argument, and by a one vote margin that underlined and extended political polarization.

The constitutional system had ruptured, but it was widely believed by the political class in Washington, including most of the press corps, that Bush, who had benefited, would rush to repair the breach. The brutality enabling him to become president, while losing the popular majority, and following a decade of partisan polarization, must spur him to make good on his campaign rhetoric of moderation, seek common ground and enact centrist policies. Old family retainers, James Baker (the former Secretary of State who had been summoned to command the legal and political teams in Florida) and Brent Scowcroft (elder Bush's former national security adviser), were especially unprepared for what was to come, and they came to oppose Bush's radicalism, mounting a sub rosa opposition. In its brazen, cold-blooded and single-minded partisanship, the Florida contest turned out in retrospect to be an augury not an aberration. It was Bush's first opening, and having charged through it, grabbing the presidency, he continued widening the breach.

The precedents for a president who gained office without winning the popular vote were uniformly grim. John Quincy Adams, the first president elected without a plurality, never escaped the accusation of having made a "corrupt bargain" to secure the necessary Electoral College votes. After one term he was turned out of office with an overwhelming vote for his rival, Andrew Jackson. Rutherford B. Hayes and Benjamin Harrison, also having won the White House but not the popular vote, declined to run again. Like these three predecessors Bush lacked a mandate, but unlike them he proceeded as though he had won by a landslide.

The Republicans had control of both houses of the Congress and the presidency for the first time since Dwight Eisenhower was elected. But Eisenhower had gained the White House with a resounding majority. He spent his early years in office trying to isolate his right wing in the Congress, quietly if belatedly encouraging efforts to censure Senator Joseph McCarthy. Eisenhower greeted the Democratic recovery of the Congress in 1954 with relief and smoothly governed for the rest of his tenure in tandem with Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson. The outrageous behavior of the Republicans during the brief period in which they had held congressional power and unleashed McCarthy was a direct cause of their minority status for 40 subsequent years. But the Republicans who gained control of the Congress in 1994 had not learned from their past.

The Republican radicals in charge of the House of Representatives remained unabashed by their smashing failures of the 1990s. They were willing to sacrifice two speakers of the House to scandals of their own in order to pursue an unconstitutional coup d'état to remove President Clinton. (It was unconstitutional, strictly speaking, because they had rejected any standards whatsoever for impeachment in the House Judiciary Committee in contradistinction to the committee's exacting standards enacted in the impeachment proceedings of President Nixon.) Now these Republicans welcomed the Bush ascension as deus ex machina, rescuing them from their exhaustion, disrepute and dead end. They became Bush's indispensable partners.

Immediately upon assuming office, Bush launched upon a series of initiatives that began to undo the bipartisan traditions of internationalism, environmentalism, fiscal discipline, and scientific progress. His first nine months in office were a quick march to the right. The reasons were manifold, ranging from Cheney and Rumsfeld's extraordinary influence, Rove's strategies, the neoconservatives' inordinate sway, and Bush's Southern conservatism. These deeper patterns were initially obscured by the surprising rapidity of Bush's determined tack.

Bush withdrew from the diplomacy with North Korea to control its development and production of nuclear weapons. Secretary of State Colin Powell, after briefing the press that the diplomatic track would continue, was sent out again to repudiate himself and announce the administration's reversal of almost a decade of negotiation. Powell did not realize that this would be the first of many times his credibility would be abused in a ritual of humiliation. Swiftly, Bush rejected the Kyoto treaty to reduce greenhouse gases and global warming, and presented a "voluntary" plan that was supported by no other nation. He also withdrew the U.S. from its historic role as negotiator among Israelis, Palestinians and Arabs, a process to which his father had been particularly committed.

In short order, Bush also reversed his campaign promise to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants and canceled the federal regulation reducing cancer causing arsenic levels in water. He joked at a dinner: "As you know, we're studying safe levels for arsenic in drinking water. To base our decision on sound science, the scientists told us we needed to test the water glasses of about 3,000 people. Thank you for participating." He appointed scores of former lobbyists and industry executives to oversee policies regulating the industries they previously represented.

As his top priority Bush pushed for passage of a large tax cut that would redistribute income to the wealthy, drain the surplus that the Clinton administration had accumulated, and reverse fiscal discipline embraced by both the Clinton and prior Bush administrations. The tax cut became Bush's chief instrument of social policy. By wiping out the surplus, budget pressure was exerted on domestic social programs. Under the Reagan administration, a tax cut had produced the largest deficit to that time, bigger than the combined deficits accumulated by all previous presidents. But Reagan had stumbled onto this method of crushing social programs through the inadvertent though predictable failure of his fantasy of supply-side economics in which slashing taxes would magically create increased federal revenues. Bush confronted alternatives in the recent Republican past, the Reagan example or his father's responsible counter-example of raising taxes to cut the deficit; once again, he rejected his father's path. But unlike Reagan, his decision to foster a deficit was completely deliberate and with full awareness of its consequences.

Domestic policy adviser John DiIulio, a political scientist from the University of Pennsylvania, who had accepted his position in the White House on the assumption that he would be working to give substance to the president's rhetoric of "compassionate conservatism," resigned in a state of shock. "There is no precedent in any modern White House for what is going on in this one: a complete lack of a policy apparatus," DiIulio told Esquire magazine. "What you've got is everything -- and I mean everything -- being run by the political arm. It's the reign of the Mayberry Machiavellis ... Besides the tax cut ... the administration has not done much, either in absolute terms or in comparison to previous administrations at this stage, on domestic policy. There is a virtual absence as yet of any policy accomplishments that might, to a fair-minded non-partisan, count as the flesh on the bones of so-called compassionate conservatism."

After just four months into the Bush presidency, the Republicans lost control of the Senate. Senator Jim Jeffords of Vermont, who had served for 26 years as a moderate Republican in the House and the Senate, left his party in response to Bush's radicalism. "In the past, without the presidency, the various wings of the Republican Party in Congress have had some freedom to argue and influence and ultimately to shape the party's agenda. The election of President Bush changed that dramatically," Jeffords said on May 24, 2001. Overnight, the majority in the upper chamber shifted to the Democrats.

Bush spent the entire month of August on vacation at his ranch in Crawford, Texas. His main public event was a speech declaring federal limits on scientific research involving stem cells that might lead to cures for many diseases. Bush's tortuous position was a sop to the religious right. On August 6, three days before his nationally televised address on stem cells, he was presented with a Presidential Daily Brief from the CIA entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside U.S." CIA director George Tenet later told the 9/11 Commission on Terrorist Attacks on the United States "the system was blinking red." The Commission reported: "The President told us the August 6 report was historical in nature ... We have found no indication of any further discussion before September 11 among the President and his top advisers of the possibility of a threat of an al Qaeda attack in the United States."

By September 10, Bush held the lowest job approval rating of any president to that early point in his tenure. He appeared to be falling into the pattern of presidents who arrived without a popular mandate and lasted only one term. The deadliest foreign attack on American soil transformed his foundering presidency.

The events of September 11 lent Bush the aura of legitimacy that Bush v. Gore had not granted. Catastrophe infused him with the charisma of a "war president," as he proclaimed himself. At once, his radicalism had an unobstructed path.

Bush's political rhetoric reached Manichaean and apocalyptic heights. He divided the world into "good" and "evil." "You're either with the terrorists or with us," he said. He stood at the ramparts of Fortress America, defending it from evildoers without and within. His fervent messianism guided what he called his "crusade" in the Muslim realm. "Bring them on!" he exclaimed about Iraqi insurgents. Asked if he ever sought advice from his father, Bush replied, "There's a higher Father I appeal to."

After September 11, the American people were virtually united in sentiment. Support for the Afghanistan war was almost unanimous. "The nation is united and there is a resolve and a spirit that is just so fantastic to feel," said Bush. But two weeks after he made this statement, in January 2002, his chief political aide, whom he called "The Architect," Karl Rove, spoke before a meeting of the Republican National Committee, laying out the strategy for exploiting fear of terror for partisan advantage. "We can go to the country on this issue because they trust the Republican Party to do a better job of protecting and strengthening America's military might and thereby protecting America," said Rove. His strategy was premised on the idea that Republicans win elections by maximizing the turnout of their conservative base; his method was to polarize the electorate as much as possible. Rove's tactic was to challenge the patriotism of Democrats by creating false issues of national security in which they could be demonized. September 11 gave his politics of polarization the urgency of national emergency.

Bush's politics sustained his remaking of the government that had been the agenda of his vice president from the start. Even before September 11, when "wartime" was used to justify secrecy, Bush resisted transparency. He fought in the courts the disclosure of the names of the participants on Vice President Dick Cheney's energy panel. Kenneth Lay, Enron's chief executive officer, was among them. Enron was the biggest financial supporter of Bush's political career, before that had been a partner in Bush's oil ventures and provided its corporate jets to the Bush campaign for its Florida contest. Bush, who referred to Lay as "Kenny Boy," claimed he didn't get to "know" him until after he became governor and then hardly at all.

Vice President Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld were the prime movers behind the concentration of power in the executive. Their experience going back to the Nixon presidency had imbued them with belief in absolute presidential power, disdain for the Congress ("a bunch of annoying gnats," Cheney called its members, of which he had once been one), and secrecy.

Executive power was rationalized by a radical theory called the "unitary executive," asserting that the president had complete authority over independent federal agencies and was not bound by congressional oversight or even law in his role as commander-in-chief.

Bush constructed a hidden world of his "war on terror" consisting of "black sites," secret CIA prisons holding thousands of "ghost" detainees deprived of legal due process and approved methods of torture. Cheney insisted it was necessary to go to "the dark side," as he called it.

Attorneys in the Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Justice wrote numerous memos to justify the "unitary executive" and the president's unfettered right to engage in torture and domestic spying. Bush's White House legal counsel Alberto Gonzales (appointed Attorney General in the second term) derided the Geneva Conventions against torture as "quaint" and Bush overruled strenuous objections from the military, Secretary of State Powell and senior officials in the Department of Justice in abrogating U.S. adherence to them. Indeed, Bush signed a directive stipulating that as commander-in-chief he could determine any law he wished in dealing with those accused of terrorism.

At Gonzales's request, on August 1, 2002, the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department sent him a memo on torture. It was signed by OLC's director Jay Bybee (later appointed a federal judge) and written by an OLC deputy, John Yoo, who drafted at least a dozen crucial memos justifying absolute presidential power. In this memo, the president's authority to conduct torture without any oversight and by rules he determined was asserted as fundamental to his power: "Any effort by the Congress to regulate the interrogation of battlefield combatants would violate the Constitution's sole vesting of the Commander in Chief authority in the President." The memo defined torture specifically and broadly: "Physical pain amounting to torture must be equivalent to intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death."

Revelations of torture at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq were the tip of the iceberg of the vast network of the detained and disappeared. The International Committee of the Red Cross was forbidden access. Those at the top of the chain of command were shielded from legal accountability while a few soldiers and the female general in charge at Abu Ghraib were offered up as scapegoats. After FBI agents witnessed gruesome spectacles of torture at Guantánamo, the Bureau issued orders that it would not participate in this netherworld.

At the same time, Bush ordered the National Security Agency to conduct domestic spying dragnets outside the legal confines of the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act and without seeking warrants from the FISA court. Conservative lawyers within the Justice Department wrote memos justifying the practice on the same grounds as they had rationalized torture -- the right of the commander-in-chief to do as he saw fit. Once again, the presidency was construed as a monarchy. Bush and Cheney argued publicly that operating outside the FISA court might have prevented the terrorist attacks of September 11, though nothing stopped the administration from getting warrants to eavesdrop on calls from the United States to al Qaeda before or after.

Foreign policy was captured by neoconservative ideologues, a small group of sectarians rooted in the hothouse environment of the capital's right-wing think tanks. Its principals had been fired from the Reagan administration after the Iran-contra scandal and banished from the elder Bush's administration, but Bush rewarded them with positions at the strategic heights of national security. These cadres operated with a Leninist sensibility following a party line, engaging in fierce polemics, using harsh invective, and showing equal contempt for traditional Republicans and liberal Democrats. Cheney acted as their sponsor, protector and promoter. Under his aegis, they ran foreign policy from the White House and the Pentagon. Secretary of State Colin Powell was sidelined. The Undersecretary of State John Bolton, inserted by Cheney, blocked Powell's initiatives and spied on him and his team, reporting back to the Office of the Vice President. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice made a separate peace and turned the National Security Council into an augmented force for Cheney and the neocons. Meanwhile, Republican realists, including elder Bush's closest associates such as Brent Scowcroft, were isolated or purged.

The 60-year tradition of bipartisan internationalism was jettisoned. After the Afghanistan war against the Taliban, the administration elevated into a "Bush Doctrine" the policy of preemptive attack, previously alien to the principles of U.S. foreign policy and expressly rejected as dangerous to the nation's security by presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy during the Cold War.

In the run-up to the Iraq war, an internal campaign was waged against professionals of the intelligence community and diplomatic corps who still upheld standards of objective analysis and carrying on the traditions of U.S. foreign policy. Intense political pressure was applied to them to distort or suppress their assessments if they contained caveats and to give credence to disinformation fabricated by Iraqi exiles favored by the neoconservatives. A special operation of neocons was set up at the Pentagon, the Office of Special Plans, to "stovepipe" information directly into the White House without passing through the analytical filter of the CIA and other intelligence agencies. Cheney made several unprecedented personal visits to CIA headquarters to try to intimidate analysts into certifying the disinformation. The caveats and warnings of the State Department's Intelligence and Research Bureau, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Department of Energy, and the intelligence services of Germany and France were all ignored.

In making its case for war the administration stampeded public opinion with false and misleading information about Saddam Hussein's possession and development of weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear weapons. Later his National Security Adviser Rice (promoted to Secretary of State in the second term) admitted that President Bush had made a false statement in his 2003 State of the Union address about Iraq's seeking uranium to produce nuclear weapons. Yet Bush, Cheney, Rice and other officials had constantly suggested that Hussein was linked to terrorism and those behind the attacks on September 11. Secretary of State Powell's best-case presentation before the United Nations was later proven to contain 26 major falsehoods. Not a single substantial claim he made turned out to be true. He explained he had been "deceived." He called it the biggest "blot" on his record. His chief of staff Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson said it was the "lowest point of my life." It was certainly the lowest point of U.S. credibility.

After he resigned in 2005, Wilkerson revealed how a "Cheney-Rumsfeld cabal" controlled national security policy: "Its insular and secret workings were efficient and swift -- not unlike the decision-making one would associate more with a dictatorship than a democracy. This furtive process was camouflaged neatly by the dysfunction and inefficiency of the formal decision-making process, where decisions, if they were reached at all, had to wend their way through the bureaucracy, with its dissenters, obstructionists and 'guardians of the turf.' But the secret process was ultimately a failure. It produced a series of disastrous decisions and virtually ensured that the agencies charged with implementing them would not or could not execute them well."

Less than a year after September 11, the administration was beset by disclosures that it had refused to take terrorism seriously before the attacks and by stories about dysfunction at the FBI. An FBI agent at the Minneapolis bureau, Coleen Rowley, emerged with documentation of how the Bureau had ignored warnings of the coming terrorist strike. On the day that she testified before the Senate, June 6, 2002, Bush suddenly announced a dramatic reversal of his position against the Democratic proposal for a Department of Homeland Security. Rowley's story was blotted out.

Bush now turned the issue of a new department against the Democrats in the midterm elections, following Rove's script. In Bush's proposal the department would not recognize unions, and because the Democrats believed that employees should have the right to form unions they were cast as weak on homeland security and terrorism. Against this backdrop, Rove helped direct attacks on the patriotism of Democrats in the 2002 midterm elections. In one Republican television commercial, the face of Senator Max Cleland of Georgia, a Vietnam veteran who had lost three limbs, was morphed into that of Osama bin Laden, and Cleland lost. The Republicans captured the Senate by one seat.

The tactics used against Democrats were also deployed to stifle contrary views within the administration and to taint the motives of those who had served and become critics. Any loyalist, no matter the egregious error of judgment, was vaunted; any heretic was burned. Bush's radical remaking of government demanded a relentless war against professionals who did not operate according to ideological tenets but objective standards of analysis.

In 2003, the disillusioned Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill, the former CEO of Alcoa, a traditional business-oriented Republican, published a memoir, "The Price of Loyalty," recounting that the deficit was deliberately fostered as a political tool contrary to economic merits. He disclosed that the invasion of Iraq was raised at a National Security Council meeting ten days after the inauguration. And he described the president among his advisers as being "like a blind man in a roomful of deaf people." The administration's response was to investigate O'Neill for supposedly unlawfully making public classified materials. It was a patently false charge, he was exonerated, but it succeeded in changing the subject and silencing him.

When, in 2003, retired Marine Corps General Anthony Zinni criticized the administration's Iraq policy and the neoconservatives' instrumental part played in its formulation, conservative media retaliated by labeling him "anti-Semitic." The former U.S. commander of Central Command and Bush's envoy to the Middle East, who had endorsed Bush in 2000, had told the Washington Post, "The more I saw, the more I thought that this was the product of the neocons who didn't understand the region and were going to create havoc there. These were dilettantes from Washington think tanks who never had an idea that worked on the ground ... I don't know where the neocons came from -- that wasn't the platform they ran on."

In July 2003, former U.S. ambassador Joseph Wilson wrote an op-ed article in the New York Times detailing that he had been sent on a mission by the CIA before the Iraq war to Niger, where he discovered that the administration claim that Saddam Hussein was trying to purchase enriched yellowcake uranium there for building nuclear weapons was untrue. Despite his report and that of two others the president insisted in his 2003 State of the Union that Hussein was in fact seeking uranium for nuclear weaponry. The counterattack against Wilson was swift. A week after his piece appeared, the conservative columnist Robert Novak wrote that "two senior administration officials" had informed him that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, an undercover CIA operative, had been responsible for sending him on his mission. The intent was somehow to cast aspersions on Wilson's credibility. (For his service as the acting U.S. ambassador in Iraq during the Gulf War, elder Bush had called him "a hero.") The disclosure of Plame's identity was an apparent felony against national security, a violation of the Intelligence Identity Protection Act, and soon a special prosecutor was appointed, and the president and the vice president were interviewed, along with much of the White House senior staff. Cheney's chief of staff and national security adviser, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, was indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice.

When, in March 2004, Richard Clarke, chief of counterterrorism on the National Security Council, testified before the 9/11 Commission and elaborated in a book, "Against All Enemies," that the Bush administration had ignored terrorism before September 11, his credibility was attacked by the administration and his motivations questioned. By then, the smearing of whistleblower career professionals had become a familiar pattern.

Traditional Republicans emerged among Bush's most penetrating critics, from O'Neill to Wilkerson, from Zinni to Clarke. They were not hostile to Bush when he entered office; on the contrary, they were willing and eager to serve under him. They observed first-hand, more than opponents on the outside, the radical changes Bush was making within the government. As Republicans, more than Democrats, they understood which traditions of their own were being traduced.

Bush's war on terror melded with his culture war at home. Never before had a president attempted so vigorously to batter down the wall of separation between church and state. In 2005, Bush proclaimed himself a votary of the "culture of life" as he signed unprecedented legislation seeking to reverse numerous state and federal court decisions that the husband of a woman named Terri Schiavo, in a persistent vegetative state for years, could end her life support. Political opportunism in the guise of theology trampled the Constitution.

Bush's appointments to the federal judiciary were an attempt to reverse the direction of the law for at least 70 years. Nearly all of his nominees were members of the Federalist Society, a conservative group of lawyers who seek to propagate certain doctrines and advance each other's careers. One of these doctrines is called "originalism," the belief that the intent of the framers can be applied to all modern problems and lead to conservative legal solution. Yet another is called the "Constitution in exile," a school of thought that argues that the true Constitution has been suppressed since President Franklin D. Roosevelt began naming justices to the Supreme Court and that its hidden law must be revived. One of Bush's judiciary appointments, Janice Rogers Brown, lecturing before a Federalist Society meeting, referred to the New Deal as "Revolution of 1937," and denounced it as "the triumph of our socialist revolution." It was hardly a surprise that Bush's nominee to the Supreme Court, federal appellate court judge Samuel Alito, was a proponent of the theory of the "unitary executive" and a wholehearted supporter of executive power.

No other president has ever been hostile to science. Russell Train, the Environmental Protection Agency administrator under presidents Nixon and Ford, observed, "How radically we have moved away from regulation based on independent findings and professional analysis of scientific, health and economic data by the responsible agency to regulation controlled by the White House and driven primarily by political considerations."

Bush's opposition to stem cell research was just the beginning of his enmity toward science. The words "reproductive health" and "condoms" were forbidden from appearing on websites of agencies or organizations that received federal funds. At the Food and Drug Administration, staff scientists and two independent advisory panels were overruled in order to deny the public access to emergency contraception. At the Centers for Disease Control, scientifically false information was posted on its website to foster doubt about the effectiveness of condoms in preventing HIV/AIDS. At the President's Council on Bioethics, two scientists were fired for dissents based on scientific reasoning. At the National Cancer Institute, staff scientists were suppressed as the administration planted a story on its website falsely connecting breast cancer to abortion. The top climate scientist at NASA, James Hansen, longtime director of the agency's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, was ordered muzzled after he noted at a scientific conference the link between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. The president also suggested that public schools should equally teach evolution, the basis of all biological science, and "Intelligent Design," a pseudo-scientific version of creationism. "I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought," Bush said.

Bush's antipathy to science had an overlapping political appeal to both the religious right and industrial special interests. Scientific research was distorted and suppressed at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Department of Agriculture, and the Environmental Protection Agency. The administration censored and misrepresented scientific reports on climate change, air pollution, endangered species, soil conservation, mercury emissions, and forests. Scientists were dismissed or rejected from numerous science advisory committees, from the Lead Poisoning Prevention Panel to the Army Science Board.

In February 2004, 60 of the nation's leading scientists, university presidents, medical experts, and former federal agency directors from both Democratic and Republican administrations, including 20 Nobel laureates, issued a statement entitled "Restoring Scientific Integrity in Policymaking." It declared: "The distortion of scientific knowledge for partisan political ends must cease if the public is to be properly informed about issues central to its well being, and the nation is to benefit fully from its heavy investment in scientific research and education."

When Hurricane Katrina landed in August 2005 scientific reality and dysfunctional government collided. Bush had systematically distorted, suppressed and ignored evidence of global warming, which scientists believed was responsible for intensifying hurricanes. The director of the National Hurricane Center had briefed Bush on the devastating impact on New Orleans and the Gulf Coast of Katrina before it hit, but the president disregarded the advance warning. The Federal Emergency Management Agency, which under President Clinton had been one of the most efficient and effective, had become a morass of incompetence and political cronyism. Amid its abject failure, Bush praised its director Michael Brown, whose previous experience was as the head of the International Arabian Horse Association, as doing "a heck of a job." New Orleans, a major and unique American city, was destroyed. In the immediate aftermath of the storm, Bush traveled six times to the city, promising to rebuild it to its former glory, but most of the city lay in ruins a year later. In January 2006, Bush declared that he had received no rebuilding plan, apparently unaware that he had already rejected it.

During the 2004 campaign, Bush's essential appeal was that he alone could keep the country safe from terrorists. Before and after the Iraq war, he implied that Saddam Hussein was in league with those responsible for September 11. On May 1, 2002, in his speech on the USS Abraham Lincoln, behind a banner reading "Mission Accomplished," he declared, "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 -- and still goes on." This theme was at the core of his campaign message and stump speech. When under questioning late in the campaign he admitted Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with September 11, he still insisted Saddam was involved with al Qaeda. Bush's closing television commercial in his 2004 campaign showed a pack of wolves symbolizing terrorists about to prey on the viewer. The voiceover intoned: "And weakness attracts those who are waiting to do America harm."

As his supporters saw him, his simplistic rhetoric was straight talk, his dogmatism fortitude, his swagger reassuring, his stubbornness made him seem like a rock against danger, and his rough edges were proof that he was a man of the people. His evangelical religion was central to his image as a man of conviction and his purity of heart. This persona helped insulate Bush from accusations that he got things wrong, misled and had ulterior motives.

Faith was as important in sustaining Bush's politics as fear. Evangelical ministers and conservative Catholic bishops turned their churches into political clubhouses. At the behest of Karl Rove, right-wingers put initiatives against gay marriage on the ballot in 16 swing states that were instrumental in maximizing the vote for Bush there in the 2004 election.

The White House carefully tended an alternative universe of belief into which its supporters took a leap of faith. From the Schiavo case to Intelligent Design, from the morning after pill to abstinence, Bush sent signals of encouragement to the religious right. His anti-scientific approach helped arouse suspicion and detestation of "experts." Critics were tainted as "elitists." Contempt for contrary facts was cultivated as a psychological prop of the leader's authority.

In 2004, the University of Maryland Program on International Policy Attitudes issued a study, "The Separate Realities of Bush and Kerry Supporters." It reported that 72 percent of Bush supporters believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction even after the U.S. Iraq Survey Group had definitively concluded that it had none. Seventy-five percent of Bush supporters believed that Saddam Hussein had been providing help to al Qaeda; 55 percent believed that the 9/11 Commission had proved that point, though the commission's report had disproved it and Bush had been forced to deny it. The social scientists conducting the survey observed that respondents held these beliefs because they said the Bush administration and conservative media had confirmed them.

Near the end of the campaign, a senior White House aide explained the "faith-based" school of political thought to reporter Ron Suskind, who wrote in the New York Times Magazine: "The aide said that guys like me were 'in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. 'That's not the way the world really works anymore,' he continued. 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors ... and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'"

The method described by the Bush aide was an updated version of the insight of the philosopher Francis Bacon, who, in 1625, wrote in his essay "Of Vaine-Glory": "For Lies are sufficient to breed Opinion, and Opinion brings on Substance."

The "separate realities" of Bush and Kerry supporters studied by the University of Maryland extended to the facts of their military records, controversies about which became decisive events in the campaign and case studies in the manipulation of information. Bush had numerous mysterious discrepancies in his Vietnam era service in the Texas Air National Guard, especially being absent without leave for a year. It is indisputable that he never actually completed his service. How he entered his unit through special preference and under what circumstances he was discharged without having finished his requirements was the subject of an investigation by CBS's "60 Minutes." The program's use of documents that could not be authenticated, though various witnesses confirmed the underlying facts, aroused an intense attack from Republican activists and the White House, and the entire exposé was discredited because of the journalistic lapse.

The Bush White House had anticipated the potential scandal in his military background, particularly in contrast to the record of Senator Kerry, who was a genuine war hero, awarded the Silver Star, Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts. In order to undermine Kerry's strong point and defend Bush's weak one, a group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth was created, funded and its public relations handled by Bush allies, and led by one John O'Neill, who had been selected by the Nixon White House to hector Kerry during the Vietnam era. The group accused Kerry of having falsely earned his medals and subsequently lied about his war experiences. Though the Navy officially affirmed his right to his medals and those who served directly with him upheld his account, the Swift Boat Veterans were granted extensive media attention as if their fabrications were a valid point of view that must be heard. On cable television especially, and on CNN in particular, a perverse form of objectivity prevailed in which the news organization abdicated establishing the facts and allowed defamation to be presented as though it was just one reasonable side of a debate.

The Bush White House, drawing harsh cautionary lessons from the Nixon experience, considered the press an extremely dangerous enemy that must be treated with contempt -- isolated, intimidated, and, if not made pliable, discredited. The administration favored Fox News and other conservative media, using them as quasi-official government propaganda organs. Joining the long project by the conservative movement, the administration sought to bring the press into disrepute and marginalize it. If journalists did not support the administration's talking points or operate from its premises, they were assailed as unfair and biased.

The conservative campaign against journalism as "liberal media" was Leninist in its assumption that truth and fact were inherently sectarian and instrumental. Acting on this premise, the press was subjected to constant and elaborate campaigns of intimidation. The administration enjoyed unprecedented success. Not a single report in any major newspaper or on the broadcast news networks covered the campaign of intimidation, as the press had once readily reported on Nixon's early effort, progenitor of the current strategy.

As giant corporate conglomerates with extensive holdings in industries subject to all manner of government regulation, media outlets were sensitive to pressure from the administration. The effort to make the mainstream media compliant was so dedicated that even Cheney himself called corporate owners to complain about individual correspondents and stories. (In 2005, Time Warner, which owns CNN, hired Republican House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's chief of staff, Timothy Berry, as its chief Washington lobbyist.)

After September 11 and in the rush to war in Iraq, a jingoist spirit infected elements of the press corps and for a long time they largely abandoned holding the government accountable. The New York Times' news reports on weapons of mass destruction and the Washington Post's editorials were indispensable in lending credence to the disinformation on which the administration made its case for the Iraq war. (The Times published a lengthy editor's note on the failures of its coverage and the Times' chief correspondent on WMD, Judith Miller, eventually resigned from the newspaper. The Post refused to acknowledge how it had been misled in its editorials before the war.) The long-term damage to the credibility of the prestige press is incalculable.

Reality was often too radical and threatening for many in the press to venture covering. Those who dared were frequently thrust into fierce conflicts. Some were subject to legal investigations by the Justice Department (for example, the New York Times for reporting on Bush's warrantless domestic surveillance and the Washington Post for reporting on secret prisons for detainees). Some were even subjected to innuendo and invasions of private life (for example, after broadcasting a story on Army morale an ABC News reporter was outed as gay by right-wing gossip columnist Matt Drudge, who claimed he was given the information by a White House source).

A gay prostitute without journalistic background, carrying press credentials from a phony media operation financed by right-wing Texas Republicans, was granted access to the regular White House press briefings and the press secretary employed the tactic of calling on him to break up the questioning of legitimate reporters. The White House also funneled federal funds to conservatives posing as legitimate journalists and commentators. Bush's chairman of the Public Broadcasting System, Kenneth Tomlinson, drove distinguished journalist Bill Moyers off the air for his heretical views and approved a show for the Wall Street Journal editorial board. Tomlinson commissioned an enemies list of "liberal media" on PBS in order to guide purging the network. (Tomlinson resigned in November 2005 after the Inspector General of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting found he had violated PBS rules by meddling in programming and contracting.)

By containing and curbing the press, Bush attempted to remove another constitutional check and balance on his power. When President Bush made an extended joke at the 2004 Radio and Television Correspondents Dinner about his inability to find WMD in Iraq -- "Not here," he said, narrating a film depicting him looking under his desk in the Oval Office -- the 1,500 members of the assembled press corps burst into raucous laughter like pledges to his fraternity.

Bush's admirers have cast him in the mold of Shakespeare's Henry V, a wastrel royal son who upon rising to the purple realizes his leadership in war. Some detractors offered an opposite portrait of the dry drunk. But these literary and psychological theories failed to assess Bush's radicalism in the historical and constitutional terms of the American presidency.

Bush has deliberately sought to institute radical changes in the character of the presidency and American government that would permanently alter the constitutional system. He used the "global war on terrorism" to impose a "unitary executive" of absolute power, disdainful of the Congress and brushing aside the judicial branch when he felt it necessary (for example, his domestic surveillance outside the FISA court). He issued many "signing statements" (a device originally designed by Samuel Alito when he served as an aide in the Reagan Justice Department) to express his own understanding of the meaning of enacted legislation and how the executive branch would or would not enforce it. The Bush White House concept of the executive was the full flowering of the imperial presidency as conceived by Richard Nixon.

Operationally, within the White House, the Office of the Vice President controlled foreign policy, making the National Security Council its auxiliary, and the flow of information to the president. No vice president was ever as powerful.

Bush was unusually incurious and passive in seeking facts. He never demanded worst-case scenarios. His circle of advisers was tightly restricted. Only a select few of the White House staff were permitted to see him, much less interact with him. He made no effort to establish independent sources of information. He never circulated to his staff articles that sparked a policy interest in him. When his support in public opinion declined, he soaked up the flattery of his aides that the people had momentarily lapsed in their appreciation of his heroic strength and vision.

Accountability was treated as a threat to executive power, not as essential to democratic governance. No one up the chain of command was held responsible for the crimes of Abu Ghraib. No one who committed grievous errors of judgment in the Iraq war was held to account. Instead they were showered with honors, medals and promotions.

Bush's radical White House depended on one-party control of the Congress. The Republican Congress supported the consolidation of executive power, even at the expense of congressional prerogatives. Oversight was studiously neglected. On any matter that might cause irritation to the White House, hearings were not held or quashed. When the White House did not produce requested documents, for example, on its conduct in response to Hurricane Katrina, there were no repercussions from the Republican Congress. The intelligence committees and the House Armed Services, among other committees, covered up administration malfeasance. The Senate Intelligence Committee skewed and distorted its report on intelligence leading into the Iraq war to acquit the administration of responsibility and refused to conduct a promised investigation into administration political pressures on the intelligence community.

The Republicans in Congress enforced discipline by creation of a pay-for-play system. Lobbyists, trade associations and law firms were told that unless they contributed to Republican campaign funds and hired Republicans they would be treated with disfavor. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay developed this political machine, called the K Street Project, to a high degree of control over Washington, until he was forced to resign his post due to indictment for criminal campaign fundraising practices. Jack Abramoff, a super-lobbyist, worked closely with DeLay, and when Abramoff pled guilty in January 2006 to fraud, tax evasion and criminal conspiracy he triggered the biggest congressional scandal in modern history. Abramoff was also plugged into the White House, linked to Rove, and even attended staff meetings.

Bush's presidency was uniquely radical in its elevation of absolute executive power, dismissal of the other branches of government, contempt for law, dominant power of the vice president, networks of ideological cadres, principle of unaccountability, stifling of internal debate, reliance on one-party rule, and overtly political use of war. Never before had a president shown disdain for science and sought to batter down the wall of separation between church and state. None of it seemed in the offing upon Bush's inauguration in 2001. Yet these actions were not sudden impulses, spontaneous reactions or accidental gestures. They were based on deliberate decisions intended to change the presidency and government fundamentally and forever. And these decisions had deep historical roots.

One of the distinctive sources of Bush's radicalism was that he was the first Southern conservative ever elected to the presidency. Southern politics has always contained varied and conflicting traditions. Through Bush, a reactionary Southern political tradition captured the center of the federal government, a phenomenon that has never occurred before. His brand of conservatism is the expression of a commodity-based oligarchy rooted in Texas, deeply hostile to the New Deal, dedicated to neglect of public services, seeking to maintain class and racially based hierarchies. Using the rhetoric of limited government and states' rights these Texas conservatives claim control over government in order to consolidate power and wealth. Both Bush and Cheney (former chief executive officer of Halliburton, a Texas based company) come out of the oil patch background. Bush's language about "compassionate conservatism" was a simple emollient to ease the way for his harsher political and policy imperatives.

In method, spirit and goals, Bush's project was the opposite of the New Deal, which was a great improvisation in the spirit of American pragmatism, "bold, persistent experimentation," as Franklin D. Roosevelt put it. The New Deal, in the face of the greatest domestic crisis since the Civil War, mobilized the capacities of government for the general welfare. The New Frontier of John F. Kennedy and the Great Society of Lyndon Johnson extended the New Deal in its social inclusiveness, reforming immigration policy, ending poverty among the elderly, and expanding education. Most significantly, on racial justice, the frustrated legacy of Reconstruction and the great Civil War constitutional amendments was finally realized.

The three Southern presidents of the 20th century were all progressive Democrats -- Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. If Woodrow Wilson were to be counted as a fourth, having been born in Virginia, he would also fit the profile of progressive (though definitely of the pre-civil rights era, given his support for segregation within the federal government). Harry Truman, from the border state of Missouri, must be categorized as one of the great liberals (including on civil rights).

In the 19th century, the Southerners in the White House, from Jefferson through Andrew Jackson, represented expanded democracy. The only Southern conservative to hold the office before the Civil War was John Tyler, who acceded to the presidency after the sudden death of William Henry Harrison, the first Whig president. Tyler was a conservative Democrat from Virginia and a man without a party whose tenure was an accidental one term. Zachary Taylor, the last Whig, from Louisiana, a national hero as the triumphant commander in the Mexican War, was setting himself against the pro-slavery forces from the South, including his son-in-law Senator Jefferson Davis of Mississippi, at the time of his death. Andrew Johnson, another accident and anomaly, was both a vehement populist and conservative, who used the presidency to attempt to scuttle Reconstruction in the name of a white man's democracy. Lyndon Johnson, the first elected Southerner since the Civil War, of course, was the greatest president on civil rights since Ulysses Grant.

The two great epochal crises in American history after the revolution -- the Civil War and the Great Depression -- were accelerated and deepened by passive, accommodating or stubbornly out of touch presidents -- James Buchanan and Herbert Hoover. Political and economic forces they failed to control or understand overcame them. But neither sought conflict or courted turmoil, even though they accelerated it. By contrast, Bush purposefully polarized differences in the country for political advantage.

In foreign policy, Bush freely appropriated the language of Woodrow Wilson about freedom and democracy. But Wilson sought to bring the U.S. into a new international system of law. Bush's unilateralism opposed the Wilsonian heritage at every turn, exemplified by his appointment of John Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations.

Bush also claimed to stand in the conservative tradition of Ronald Reagan. Indeed, Reagan sought to overturn longstanding policies of Democratic and Republican presidents alike in his pursuit of a radical and often fanciful conservatism. But when he found himself cornered by realities, Reagan the ideologue gave way to Reagan the old union negotiator prepared for compromise. Facing reality, he gave up his rhetoric about privatizing Social Security to join with Democrats to fund its long-term solvency. After the Iran-contra scandal, he summarily dismissed his neoconservative aides and forged a détente with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev that helped lead to the end of the Cold War. That achievement, which required disenthralling his administration from the right wing, was his finest moment and the enduring basis of his presidential reputation. Had he not cast out the right, he would have remained covered with disgrace in history.

George W. Bush's father, Reagan's vice president and successor, George H.W. Bush, pointedly blackballed the neoconservatives from his administration. Yet the son George dusted off Reagan's discredited zealots and their doctrines to provide him with reasons for a war of choice in Iraq. His rejection of his father's realism in foreign policy was pointed and that rejection signaled a larger radicalism.

Nothing like Bush's concerted radicalism has ever been seen before in the White House. One would have to go back to the Civil War era to find politics as polarized. But not even the president of the Confederate States of America, Jefferson Davis, ran as extreme and insulated an administration. Davis, a former U.S. senator and Secretary of War, appointed men he knew to be experienced politicians and diplomats to responsible positions within his government, and kept the radical Fire-eaters at bay. As soon as the Fire-eaters' vision of an independent slave republic materialized through secession they were consigned to the sidelines, where they remained as critics of the Confederate president for the duration of the Civil War.

Never before has a president so single-handedly and willfully been the source of national and international crises. The tragedy of September 11 cannot be offered as the sole justification to explain his actions. In his first inaugural address, Bush cited a biblical passage about an "angel in the whirlwind." His presidency has been a self-created whirlwind.

In 1900, Theodore Roosevelt wrote a sympathetic biography of Oliver Cromwell, the leader of the short-lived English republic of the 17th century. While Roosevelt admired many of Cromwell's intentions to create representative government, he described how Cromwell's volatile temperament undermined his virtuous goals. "In criticizing Cromwell, however, we must remember that generally in such cases an even greater share of blame must attach to the nation than to the man." Roosevelt continued:

"Self-governing freemen must have the power to accept necessary compromises, to make necessary concessions, each sacrificing somewhat of prejudice, and even of principle, and every group must show the necessary subordination of its particular interests to the interests of the community as a whole. When the people will not or cannot work together; when they permit groups of extremists to decline to accept anything that does not coincide with their own extreme views; or when they let power slip from their hands through sheer supine indifference; then they have themselves chiefly to blame if the power is grasped by stronger hands."

The tragedy that Theodore Roosevelt described is not reserved in its broad dimensions to Britain. Roosevelt wrote his history as a lesson for Americans, who had been spared the travesties of the English revolution. Instead of Cromwell, we had had Washington. Ultimately, a people are responsible for its leaders. Bush's legacy will encompass a crisis over democracy that only the American people can resolve.

Attn: New Hampshire residents! Don't be fooled by 'Brandi's Law.'

2006-09-11T12:25:00.000-04:00

Do not support this movement.

Here’s what it’s about: Brandi was a pregnant nineteen-year old that was beaten to death by her boy friend. This is truly, horrible stuff. Brandi's law is an attempt to define an un-born fetus as a person, so Brandi's boy friend can be tried for two murders rather than one.

On the surface it seems like a pretty good idea. Bust this monster for two murders instead of one, how can you go wrong? But you may be tricked into bringing the anti-abortion folks in the back door. This law would, essentially, end the debate on fetal development and give anti-abortion folks the legal foothold they’ve been looking for.

If Brandi’s boyfriend committed two murders that day, than killing a fetus, even an unviable one, would be a capitol offence. And there go your reproductive rights!

As much as I think Brandi’s boyfriend deserves rot in some prison somewhere, (and Brandi’s law will not change the fact that he is indeed going to) I’m not willing to concede legal precedence or debate to see someone serve two, rather than one life sentence.

For those living in NH - Re: Coburn for Gov. ads on TV

2006-09-08T11:07:00.000-04:00

Are these the worst election ads ever? The one Coburn ad I keep seeing features the accusation that Gov. Lynch has done nothing to decrease gas prices at the pump.

What?

Who knew Mr. Lynch was a member of OPEC? I sure didn’t. There are a great many reasons why gas is expensive and, as far as I know, none of them include Gov. Lynch.

Then there is my favorite moment in the ad where some guy looks into the camera and says; “I just don’t like ‘em.”

Well, that does it for me! Gov. Lynch has made no effort at all to become a member of OPEC, and that guy at the gas station says he doesn’t like him! I, for one, am convinced!

I’m convinced that Mr. Coburn needs a new media consultant! Not that I really want him to get one…the ads might not be effective, but they are entertaining on a sort of ‘knee-jerk-random-bubba-at-the-gas-pump-nanny-nanny-pooh-pooh’ level.

Yes, Mr. Coburn’s Media Consultant, your are supposed to set Gov. Lynch up as a straw man and accuse him of something that he really has nothing to do with, but gas? That one is just too obvious. Didn’t you get Carl’s memo? (That’s Carl Rove y’all, the presidents political advisor. I mention it because polls say the majority of you out there don’t know who this guy is. Pay attention!) Your supposed to be painting Gov. Lynch as being weak on ‘security,’ the smear is supposed to be about ‘cutting and running,’ it’s supposed to be ‘not keeping us safe from terrorists,’ or something. Geeze. Don’t make me do your job for ya!

Our magnificent isolation - By Garrison Keillor

2006-09-06T09:37:00.000-04:00

It's hard for Americans to visualize our country's collapse. If the president turns out to be a shallow fool, we still expect to survive it.

Sep. 06, 2006 - Growing up in the '50s, we imagined our country defended by guided missiles poised in bunkers, jet fighters on the tarmac and pilots in the ready room prepared to scramble, a colonel with a black briefcase sitting in the hall outside the president's bedroom. But Sept. 11 gave us a clearer picture. We have a vast array of hardware, a multitude of colonels, a lot of bureaucratic confusion, and a nation vulnerable to attack.

The FAA has now acknowledged that the third of the four planes seized by the 19 men with box cutters had already hit the Pentagon before the FAA finally called there to say there was a problem. The FAA lied to the 9/11 Commission about this, then took two years to ascertain the facts -- a 51-minute gap in defense -- and released the finding on the Friday before Labor Day, an excellent burial site for bad news.

So America is not the secure fortress we grew up imagining. Perhaps it never was. What protects us is what has protected us for 230 years: our magnificent isolation. After the disasters of the 20th century, Europe put nationalism aside and adopted civilization, but we have oceans on either side, so if the president turns out to be a shallow jingoistic fool with a small rigid agenda and little knowledge of the world, we expect to survive it somehow. Life goes on.

It's hard for Americans to visualize the collapse of our country. It's as unthinkable as one's own demise. Europeans are different: They've seen disaster, even the British. They know it was a near thing back in 1940. My old Danish mother-in-law remembered the occupation clearly 40 years later and was teary-eyed when she talked about it. Francis Scott Key certainly could envision the demise of the United States in 1814 when he watched the bombardment of Fort McHenry. Lincoln was haunted by the thought. We are not, apparently, though five years ago we saw a shadow.

You might think from the latest broadsides that the republic is teetering, that it's Munich again, the Nazis are on the loose, and the Current Occupant is Winston Churchill, and that to question him is treachery. The fury of the right wing is quite remarkable -- to maintain a sense of persecution after years of being in power is like Donald Trump feeling overlooked -- but life goes on.

We really are one people at heart. We all believe that when thousands of people are trapped in the Superdome without food or water, it is the duty of government, the federal government if necessary, to come to their rescue and to restore them to the civil mean and not abandon them to fate. Right there is the basis of liberalism. Conservatives tried to introduce a new idea -- it's your fault if you get caught in a storm -- and this idea was rejected by nine out of 10 people once they saw the pictures. The issue is whether we care about people who don't get on television.

Last week I sat and listened to a roomful of parents talk about their battles with public schools in behalf of their children who suffer from dyslexia, or apraxia, or ADD, or some other disability -- sagas of ferocious parental love vs. stonewall bureaucracy in the quest for basic needful things -- and how some of them had uprooted their families and moved to Minnesota so their children could attend better schools. You couldn't tell if those parents were Republicans or Democrats. They simply were prepared to move mountains so their kids could have a chance. So are we all.

And that's the mission of politics: to give our kids as good a chance as we had. They say that liberals have run out of new ideas -- it's like saying that Christians have run out of new ideas. Maybe the old doctrine of grace is good enough.

I don't get much hope from Democrats these days, a timid and skittish bunch, slow to learn, unable to sing the hymns and express the steady optimism that is at the heart of the heart of the country. I get no hope at all from Republicans, whose policies seem predicated on the Second Coming occurring in the very near future. If Jesus does not descend through the clouds to take them directly to paradise, and do it now, they are going to have to answer to the rest of us.

America eats its young - By Garrison Keillor

2006-08-31T13:27:00.000-04:00

We're sticking the next generation with debt and an unjust war. Solution: We must cut healthcare for people with "Bush-Cheney" bumper stickers.

Aug. 30, 2006 - It's the best part of summer, the long lovely passage into fall. A procession of lazy golden days that my sandy-haired, gap-toothed little girl has been painting, small abstract masterpieces in tempera and crayon and glitter, reminiscent of Franz Kline or Willem de Kooning (his early glitter period). She put a sign out front, "Art for Sale," and charged 25 cents per painting. Cheap at the price.

A teacher gave her this freedom to sit unselfconsciously and put paint on paper. A gentle 6-foot-8 guy named Matt who taught art at her preschool. Her swimming teachers gave her freedom from fear of water. So much that has made this summer a pleasure for her I trace to specific teachers, and so it's painful to hear about public education sinking all around us. A high school math class of 42! Everybody knows you can't teach math to 42 kids at once, kids doped up on sugar and Coke, sleepy kids, Hmong kids, African-American kids who think scholarship is white bread. The classroom smells bad because the custodial staff has been cut back. The teacher is shelling out $900 a month for health insurance, one-third of his take-home. Meanwhile, he must whip his pupils into shape to pass the federal No Child Left Untested program. This is insanity, the legacy of Republicans and their tax cutting and their hostility to secular institutions.

Last spring I taught a college writing course and had the privilege of hanging out with people in their early 20s, an inspirational experience in return for which I tried to harass them about spelling and grammar and structure. My interest in being 21 again is less than my interest in having a frontal lobotomy, but the wit and passion and good-heartedness of these kids, which they try to conceal under their exquisite cool, are the hope of this country. You have to advocate for young people, or else what are we here for?

I keep running into retirees in their mid-50s, free to collect seashells and write bad poetry and shoot video of the Grand Canyon, and goody for them, but they're not the future. My college kids are graduating with a 20-pound ball of debt chained to their ankles. That's not right and you know it.

This country is squashing its young. We're sending them to die in a war we don't believe in anymore. We're cheating them so we can offer tax relief to the rich. And we're stealing from them so that old gaffers like me, who want to live forever, can go in for an MRI if we have a headache.

A society that pays for MRIs for headaches and can't pay teachers a decent wage has made a dreadful choice. But healthcare costs are ballooning, eating away at the economy. The boomers are getting to an age where their knees need replacing and their hearts need a quadruple bypass -- which they feel entitled to -- but our children aren't entitled to a damn thing. Any goombah with a Ph.D. in education can strip away French and German, music, art, dumb down the social sciences, offer Britney Spears instead of Shakespeare, and there is nothing the kid can do except hang out in the library, which is being cut back too.

This week we mark the anniversary of Hurricane Katrina and the Current Occupant's line "You're doing a heckuva job," which already is in common usage, a joke, a euphemism for utter ineptitude. It's sure to wind up in Bartlett's Quotations, a summation of his occupancy. Annual interest on the national debt now exceeds all government welfare programs combined. We'll be in Iraq for years to come. Hard choices need to be made, and given the situation we're in, I think we must bite the bullet and say no more healthcare for card-carrying Republicans. It just doesn't make sense to invest in longevity for people who don't believe in the future. Let them try faith-based medicine, let them pray for their arteries to be reamed and their hips to be restored, and leave science to the rest of us.

Cutting out healthcare for one-third of the population -- the folks with Bush-Cheney bumper stickers, who still believe the man is doing a heckuva job -- will save enough money to pay off the national debt, not a bad legacy for Republicans. As Scrooge said, let them die and reduce the surplus population. In return, we can offer them a reduction in the estate tax. All in favor, blow your nose.

Scarborough's fair By Alex Koppelman

2006-08-23T10:08:00.000-04:00

The Republican TV host reveals why he launched his "Is Bush an 'idiot'?" segment and why conservatives are afraid to question the president.

Aug. 23, 2006 A member of the so-called Class of 1994, the 54 Republican freshmen swept into the U.S. House by Newt Gingrich's Contract with America, Joe Scarborough resigned his seat in 2001. Now the host of MSNBC's "Scarborough Country," he has recently been the focus of much attention from both Democrats and Republicans for his criticism of the president. On Aug. 15, he aired a segment that asked "Is Bush an 'idiot'?" Salon asked Scarborough what brought him to criticize a man he once bragged he'd helped get elected, and how he's dealing with the reaction.

What prompted you to do the now infamous "Is Bush an 'idiot'?" segment?

Somebody had suggested that we get Linda Ronstadt's quote where she called the president an idiot and do what we've been doing for the past three or four years, where we make fun of a Hollywood star questioning the president's intelligence. It's something we've been doing mindlessly over the past several years, but as I was reading it, I couldn't help but think, "Well, wait a second -- I've been hearing this from conservatives for the past year or so. Why don't we ask a question: whether Linda Ronstadt, Democrats and Hollywood left-wing types are on to something." So we put the question up, and I suppose if our lower third had read "Is Linda Ronstadt right?" instead of "Is Bush an 'idiot'?" in quotes, it would have garnered a lot less attention. But we put it up that way, and it has sparked a firestorm. The White House is unhappy. A lot of conservatives are unhappy. Well, not conservatives. A lot of Republican loyalists are unhappy. But again, the only thing I did was ask publicly what a lot of conservatives have been saying privately since Katrina and the Harriet Miers nomination.

That brings up another question I wanted to ask you -- you've been tough on liberals in the past, and you continue to be tough on them now. With your recent shift in viewpoint, have your feelings on liberalism, and the liberal critics of the administration, changed at all?

Obviously since the things they were predicting about Iraq have been proven to be accurate, or at least more accurate than what the administration was saying back in 2003, you certainly have to tip your hat to them.

At the same time, I believed then, and I still believe now, that what we did in Iraq was worth trying. We've had three democratic elections, and unfortunately the country's still descending into chaos. I suppose the biggest criticism, really, should be leveled at Donald Rumsfeld for trying to win the war on the cheap, like Tom Friedman and others have been saying. But looking back at it, there was no way we could have been successful in Iraq with the troop levels that we had over there. That, in part, is why conservatives like me are charging that George Bush is intellectually incurious, and that he stifles dissent.

I think, really, one of the most telling parts of [Bob] Woodward's book "Bush at War" is when he asks Bush if he talked to Colin Powell about the invasion of Iraq, and he says, "No, I didn't feel the need to, because I knew how we was going to respond, that he was against the war," which sort of sends a chill up your spine, because those are the people you want the president talking to. You want him asking tough questions of aides who actually disagree with him. If you talk to people at the DoD or at the State Department or Capitol Hill, they'll all tell you basically the same thing, that the president is a man who's not only politically incurious, but is also a leader who does not like dissent, and I think that's very dangerous.

And if Don Rumsfeld came through talking about winning the war on the cheap, that's one reason why he needed to talk to Colin Powell, because he's always -- I mean, he said it in the first Gulf War, and he said it in this gulf war -- said that you don't win wars on the cheap: You don't want a fair fight. You use military force very reluctantly, but when you use it, you use overpowering, overwhelming force, destroy your enemy as quickly as possible, and then bring the troops back home. That wasn't done, and I think if the president had asked tougher questions in February of 2003, we wouldn't find ourselves where we are in 2006.

That's a very long yes answer to your question.

Your criticism of the president has been about more than just the Iraq war -- you've criticized the NSA eavesdropping program, you've criticized the bank records program, you've criticized government spending. What's prompted that criticism, and that direction on your show, generally?

You know, it started back in 2004. I wrote a book called "Rome Wasn't Burnt in a Day," which three people read, because when you write books now you either have to be on the left calling the president a liar or be on the right calling people treasonous. I actually took Republicans and Democrats to task and was harshly critical of the president and my Republican colleagues for being so hypocritical ... No tough choices are being made in Washington. You want to have a war? OK, we'll pay for it. You want tax cuts? OK, we'll pay for it. You want a $7 trillion Medicare drug benefit plan? OK, we'll pay for it...

Here's the kicker -- since 2004, I have been attacked by Republicans, by conservatives, well, actually, more by Republican loyalists than conservatives, by basically the Republican establishment in Washington, for saying the exact same thing that we were all saying in 1995, '96, '97, '98, '99. We were always attacking Bill Clinton's spending levels. Dick Armey called him a Marxist, called Hillary Clinton a Marxist. As I point out in speeches these days, government spending grew by 3.4 percent annually under Bill Clinton the Marxist. Spending has grown by 10.5 percent under George Bush the fiscal conservative. I always say: Give me that choice, I'll take the Marxist at 3.4 percent any day of the week. And so I started in 2004, and when you talk about NSA wiretapping, when you talk about the bank records, my criticisms -- I'm saying the exact same thing now that Bob Barr and David Vitter and myself were saying on the Judiciary Committee in 1999 and in 2000, when Janet Reno was trying to get roving wiretaps without coming to Congress first.

Somebody sent me an e-mail yesterday saying they couldn't believe how much I've changed. That's laughable. I'm saying the exact same thing now that I was saying in 1999, when I was on the Judiciary Committee, that I was saying in 1995 during the Contract with America, that I was saying in 1994 when I was campaigning to be a part of a fiscally conservative Congress. The libertarian strain of Republicanism that was on the rise in the 1990s has been snuffed out by the Bush administration and by Republicans who suddenly adore big government, whether big government in the Justice Department or big government in the Oval Office when they put budgets together. I'm not the one whose convictions have changed. It's the Bush administration and Republican leaders on the Hill whose positions have changed radically since 2001.

You mentioned on your show Monday night that you've been "blasted by Republican loyalists," and of course you're not the first. You mentioned Bob Barr; he, Pat Buchanan, Andrew Sullivan, have been demonized as liberals or "ex-conservatives" for criticizing the president. Now that you're getting a little bit of that, what's your feeling on it?

It is unfortunate for the Republican Party that loyalty to conservative causes has been linked with George W. Bush. I have a friend, an evangelical pastor, who says it's much worse in churches, where a year or two ago, if he ever questioned what George Bush did, his faith in God was questioned!

It goes back to hypocrisy. We Republicans, during impeachment, were so outraged that Democrats would bitch and moan behind the scenes and talk about what a disgrace Bill Clinton was, but then when they went on the House floor and the Senate floor, would fiercely defend him ... We would all scratch our heads and say, 'How could they do that? How could they go out and circle the wagons and say something they didn't believe?'

And yet here we have a Republican administration and a Republican Congress doing basically the exact same thing, where staying in power is more important than staying true to the values that put you in power in the first place. Again, there are more and more conservatives behind the scenes that are voicing concerns, but most of them are afraid to say anything publicly, because they know if they do they'll be branded as traitors to the cause.

Tim Graham, from the Media Research Center, recently referred to your criticism of the president as "Scarborough syndrome" and said that "being a conservative host inside a liberal network -- not to mention a liberal network that has a history of changing prime-time hosts like socks -- might compel you to being [sic] more critical of Bush and conservatives." What's your reaction to that?

I have his boss [Brent Bozell, also of the Media Research Center] on all the time, and his boss doesn't seem to mind it. I think I'm usually on the same side as his boss. It's interesting. Tim had problems with me from the very beginning, when I was with the president 100 percent, because I wasn't on Fox. Sometimes I think he's on Fox's payroll, because, again, just right out of the box back in 2003, when I was the biggest supporter of this war, I was still getting snarky comments from Tim Graham and the Media Research Center. Again, interestingly enough, I get those snarky comments and then they ask me to be the emcee of their yearly event, which I do, and I'm still getting those snarky comments from Tim, despite the fact, again, that Brent Bozell comes on, and again, usually when he's on the show we're in total agreement. Who knows? Maybe he's more of a Bush loyalist than he is a conservative.

I would love for Tim Graham to find one position that I didn't take -- that he didn't take -- in 1999, when Bill Clinton was president, or in 1995, during the Contract with America, or 1994, when we were all campaigning for smaller government. Is he upset that I'm against NSA wiretapping without congressional consent? Is he shocked that I criticized the president for rolling up the biggest deficits and debts in history and not vetoing a single spending bill? What, exactly -- what, exactly -- have I said on my show over the past month or two that I wasn't saying in Congress for eight years or on the campaign trail? The answer is absolutely nothing. I'm saying the same exact thing. So I would redefine "Scarborough syndrome" as remaining consistent to the conservative cause instead of blindly following a Republican president who is more Rockefeller Republican than Reagan Republican.

You were approached to run against Katherine Harris. Why did you decide not to?

A couple of different reasons. The first reason is that my boys are 15 and 18; the 18-year-old is going off to college, and of course he wanted me to run, because he was out of the house, and the 15-year-old didn't want me to run, so that made things much easier for me. But also, politically, look at the landscape -- it would have been very hard for me to run as a Republican with all the problems I was having with the Republican Party and this administration. It would be very hard for a Republican candidate in the state of Florida to be running with a president whose help you'd obviously have to rely on to get elected.

I didn't think the Republicans had a good story to tell in 2006, and thought it was going to be ugly a year ago. I was right. I have several friends who are running for Congress, who I advised against running for Congress because I thought the political environment was going to be terrible in 2006, and it's proven to be just that.

With the way Harris' campaign has gone, what are your feelings on that decision now?

If I were ready to get back into politics right now, it would have been a fantastic opportunity to walk into a Senate seat. And it is very frustrating seeing Katherine disintegrate in front of everybody. If I were ready to get back in to the Senate right now, it would have been a great opportunity, but I'm just not ready personally or politically, and I'm actually enjoying what I'm doing at MSNBC an awful lot, especially now that I've been given the freedom I've been given. There've been so many times when people have talked to me about running for different offices, but at the time I look at what I'm doing.

I talked to John McCain at one point, who told me to stay where I was, that I had so much more influence on events and on the debate than I ever would if I was the junior senator from Florida, and I think he was right -- at least that's been my experience since I've been involved in the news business.

What they went through - By Garrison Keillor

2006-08-23T09:45:00.000-04:00

Our countrymen died real deaths on Sept. 11, and we need to listen to their last words.

Aug. 23, 2006 \ It was painful to hear the woman in anguish on the 83rd floor of the World Trade Center, crying, "I'm going to die, aren't I? I'm going to die." Melissa Doi was 32, beautiful, with laughing eyes and black hair. She was lying on the floor of her office at IQ Financial, overwhelmed by smoke and heat, calling for help. And then there was Kevin Cosgrove on the 105th floor, moments before it collapsed, gasping for breath, saying, "We're young men, we're not ready to die." And then he screamed, "Oh my God" as the building started to collapse. It's in their voices, what they went through.

Those were two of the 1,613 calls to 911 released by New York City last week, on almost all of which the caller's voice was beeped out. The city argued that to hear persons in anguish in their last minutes constitutes an invasion of privacy. The truth is that the callers had no interest in privacy, they were desperate to be heard, and censoring them now is a last insult by a bureaucracy that failed to protect them in the first place.

They were people like us; we might have sat near them in a theater or restaurant, asked them for directions on the street. They went to work that fine Tuesday morning and suddenly found themselves facing the abyss, and the first thing we thought, seeing the burning buildings on TV, was "What is it like for the people in there?" We wanted to know.

Then, inevitably, politicians began to seize the day and turn it into a patriotic tableau starring themselves. Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who does not appear in a leadership capacity in the reliable accounts of that morning, who was captured on videotape fleeing uptown, soon stepped into the TV lights and put on his public face, and a few days later the Current Occupant mounted the wreckage with bullhorn in hand and vowed vengeance, and the media was glad to focus on the martial moment, the flag waving over the wreckage, the theme of America united -- and the anguished voices from the towers were unheard, the people who fell from high floors and smashed into the pavement were not seen on American TV. The media averted its eyes from the reality of 9/11 and started looking for the message.

The best book on the subject, by the way, is "102 Minutes: The Untold Story of the Fight to Survive Inside the Twin Towers," by Jim Dwyer and Kevin Flynn, two New York Times reporters who fashioned a plain narrative out of thousands of stories that took place in the time between the first strike and the collapse of the second tower. You read it, you're there.

Mr. Giuliani is still flying around giving speeches on leadership, knocking down a hundred grand per shot, getting standing ovations everywhere as a stand-in for the police and firemen who died in the towers. He has never faced up to his failure to prepare for the attack, even after the 1993 bomb explosion at the World Trade Center, when it was shown clearly that police and fire couldn't communicate with each other by radio. Eight years passed, little was done, and then came the 19 men with box cutters. The 911 operators took thousands of calls and had no information to give. Police helicopter pilots, who had a clear view of the infernos and could see that the buildings were going to collapse, couldn't get word to fire chiefs on the ground, who, unable to see the fire, sent their men up the stairs to die. Official bungling cost those men their lives.

In the end, what we crave is reality. The woman crying on the 83rd floor was real. Our countrymen died real deaths on a warm September morning, and then, to avenge them, even more have died in Iraq and Afghanistan. In our hearts, we know we're on the wrong road, the road to unreality, but the man says to stay the course. And now as November nears, congressmen who have supported the war, no questions asked, find it convenient to admit to having "questions" about it. "We are facing a difficult situation," they say. They are "troubled."

The woman who cried on the 83rd floor was more than troubled. She saw death. It is indecent for New York to stifle the voices of the people in the towers. The congressmen who deal so casually with life and death ought to sit down and listen to those phone calls.

From Broadsheet - 65 pregnant teens = One canceled abstinence-only progrqam

2006-08-17T08:49:00.000-04:00

It became near impossible for the Canton school board to ignore the unintended by-products of its abstinence-only program when 13 percent of Timken High School's female student population became pregnant last year. Thanks to Feministing for pointing us in the direction of this ridiculous-but-true story about an Ohio school board which has, to its credit, finally seen the light of sex education.

Of course it took 65 of the 490 female students becoming pregnant within a year to adequately deliver that message, but as Jessica of Feministing queried, "I guess better late than never?"

Sure, we can throw them that bone. The board decided Monday to include safe sex education into the curriculum, while continuing to promote abstinence. They also plan to replace a few well-worn health textbooks that are "older than some students," according to WYFF 4 of South Carolina. Patty Rafailedes, a physical education teacher in the district, told the station, "If we had math books from 1988, reading books from 1988, as a parent, I would be furious."

Susan Ross, coordinator of health services for Canton schools, admits the district was well-behind the times. "Our sex education curriculum was really outdated," Canton told the Associated Press. "It was about 18 years since it was revised. With kids, having good and updated knowledge is critical." Sounds to me like the adults were the ones lacking "good and updated knowledge." Let's hope their recent enlightenment spreads to the rest of Ohio.
-- Tracy Clark-Flory

Charles Bukowski - Don't Try

2006-08-15T14:28:00.000-04:00

Citizen Just Doing It's Job - Printed in Laconia Citizen 8-8-06

2006-08-08T11:35:00.000-04:00

Editor, The Citizen:

In an article entitled "Newspaper criticized for lawsuit" I learned The Citizen recently filed a Right-to-Know suit against the town of Tilton when, to quote the article, "... the town refused to release a taxpayer-funded independent assessment on the practices of the office of the town clerk."

Because of this suit Scott Davis, a member of the search committee to select a new town administrator, is asking the Tilton Board of Selectmen to no longer use The Citizen for help-wanted ads, or legal notices, etc.

Mr. Davis said, "Under no circumstances should we spend money [with The Citizen]." Sour grapes Mr. Davis?

Listen, The Citizen is a newspaper. Last I knew one of the things that you do when you're a newspaper is a little thing called reporting the news. I know it's a pretty unpopular idea these days. But there have been, as you are now fully aware, laws passed to protect the people's right to know as well as freedom of the press. These laws are also in place to promote as transparent a government as can be reasonably had.

That being said, I don't think The Citizen will go out of business without Tilton's business. So, good luck with that. (Sour grapes!)

Apparently 59,054,087 Americans are STILL dumb

2006-08-07T09:02:00.000-04:00

Half of U.S. Still Believes Iraq Had WMD
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By CHARLES J. HANLEY AP Special Correspondent
August 07,2006 -- Do you believe in Iraqi "WMD"? Did Saddam Hussein's government have weapons of mass destruction in 2003?

Half of America apparently still thinks so, a new poll finds, and experts see a raft of reasons why: a drumbeat of voices from talk radio to die-hard bloggers to the Oval Office, a surprise headline here or there, a rallying around a partisan flag, and a growing need for people, in their own minds, to justify the war in Iraq.

People tend to become "independent of reality" in these circumstances, says opinion analyst Steven Kull.

The reality in this case is that after a 16-month, $900-million-plus investigation, the U.S. weapons hunters known as the Iraq Survey Group declared that Iraq had dismantled its chemical, biological and nuclear arms programs in 1991 under U.N. oversight. That finding in 2004 reaffirmed the work of U.N. inspectors who in 2002-03 found no trace of banned arsenals in Iraq.

Despite this, a Harris Poll released July 21 found that a full 50 percent of U.S. respondents -- up from 36 percent last year -- said they believe Iraq did have the forbidden arms when U.S. troops invaded in March 2003, an attack whose stated purpose was elimination of supposed WMD. Other polls also have found an enduring American faith in the WMD story.

"I'm flabbergasted," said Michael Massing, a media critic whose writings dissected the largely unquestioning U.S. news reporting on the Bush administration's shaky WMD claims in 2002-03.
"This finding just has to cause despair among those of us who hope for an informed public able to draw reasonable conclusions based on evidence," Massing said.

Timing may explain some of the poll result. Two weeks before the survey, two Republican lawmakers, Pennsylvania's Sen. Rick Santorum and Michigan's Rep. Peter Hoekstra, released an intelligence report in Washington saying 500 chemical munitions had been collected in Iraq since the 2003 invasion.

"I think the Harris Poll was measuring people's surprise at hearing this after being told for so long there were no WMD in the country," said Hoekstra spokesman Jamal Ware.

Conservative commentator Deroy Murdock, who trumpeted Hoekstra's announcement in his syndicated column, complained in an interview that the press "didn't give the story the play it deserved." But in some quarters it was headlined.

"Our top story tonight, the nation abuzz today ..." was how Fox News led its report on the old, stray shells. Talk-radio hosts and their callers seized on it. Feedback to blogs grew intense. "Americans are waking up from a distorted reality," read one posting.

Other claims about supposed WMD had preceded this, especially speculation since 2003 that Iraq had secretly shipped WMD abroad. A former Iraqi general's book -- at best uncorroborated hearsay -- claimed "56 flights" by jetliners had borne such material to Syria.

But Kull, Massing and others see an influence on opinion that's more sustained than the odd headline.
"I think the Santorum-Hoekstra thing is the latest 'factoid,' but the basic dynamic is the insistent repetition by the Bush administration of the original argument," said John Prados, author of the 2004 book "Hoodwinked: The Documents That Reveal How Bush Sold Us a War."

Administration statements still describe Saddam's Iraq as a threat. Despite the official findings, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has allowed only that "perhaps" WMD weren't in Iraq. And Bush himself, since 2003, has repeatedly insisted on one plainly false point: that Saddam rebuffed the U.N. inspectors in 2002, that "he wouldn't let them in," as he said in 2003, and "he chose to deny inspectors," as he said this March.

The facts are that Iraq -- after a four-year hiatus in cooperating with inspections -- acceded to the U.N. Security Council's demand and allowed scores of experts to conduct more than 700 inspections of potential weapons sites from Nov. 27, 2002, to March 16, 2003. The inspectors said they could wrap up their work within months. Instead, the U.S. invasion aborted that work.

As recently as May 27, Bush told West Point graduates, "When the United Nations Security Council gave him one final chance to disclose and disarm, or face serious consequences, he refused to take that final opportunity."

"Which isn't true," observed Kathleen Hall Jamieson, a scholar of presidential rhetoric at the University of Pennsylvania. But "it doesn't surprise me when presidents reconstruct reality to make their policies defensible." This president may even have convinced himself it's true, she said.

Americans have heard it. A poll by Kull's WorldPublicOpinion.org found that seven in 10 Americans perceive the administration as still saying Iraq had a WMD program. Combine that rhetoric with simplistic headlines about WMD "finds," and people "assume the issue is still in play," Kull said.
"For some it almost becomes independent of reality and becomes very partisan." The WMD believers are heavily Republican, polls show.

Beyond partisanship, however, people may also feel a need to believe in WMD, the analysts say.

"As perception grows of worsening conditions in Iraq, it may be that Americans are just hoping for more of a solid basis for being in Iraq to begin with," said the Harris Poll's David Krane.
Charles Duelfer, the lead U.S. inspector who announced the negative WMD findings two years ago, has watched uncertainly as TV sound bites, bloggers and politicians try to chip away at "the best factual account," his group's densely detailed, 1,000-page final report.

"It is easy to see what is accepted as truth rapidly morph from one representation to another," he said in an e-mail. "It would be a shame if one effect of the power of the Internet was to undermine any commonly agreed set of facts."

The creative "morphing" goes on.

As Israeli troops and Hezbollah guerrillas battled in Lebanon on July 21, a Fox News segment suggested, with no evidence, yet another destination for the supposed doomsday arms.

"ARE SADDAM HUSSEIN'S WMDS NOW IN HEZBOLLAH'S HANDS?" asked the headline, lingering for long minutes on TV screens in a million American homes.

A reply to Scott's comments on my post; 'Respect.'

2006-07-25T11:27:00.000-04:00

(Thanks xexus!)

As for Scott, um…xexus got my point, and I think you missed it. I was raised a Catholic, went to church every Sunday, attended CCD or Catechism, and eventually was confirmed into the Church. Hell? I read about it. Church? Yup! I’ve been there. But I guess I just don’t see God being that much of a hard-ass. I mean, first off, just so we’re on the same page here, which bible are we going by for this discussion?

I think the core message of God, or ‘The Word’ as xexus put it, is to be cool to each other. Don’t steal the other guy’s stuff, be kind, help those with less than you, and try to be a good person. And I think my whole point is; you must tend to your own garden before you try and plant zucchini in mine, bitch! ;-)

PS: Scott said he would pray for me, for which I thank him. After all, I could be very wrong about everything, in which case I need all the help I can get! But I’ve a quick aside on prayer...I've thought a lot about this, and pretty much any prayer other than something along the lines of ‘please forgive me,’ seems pretty egotistical...a sin of pride, if you will. But what the heck do I know? Actually, appealing to God and expecting anything at all seems pretty egotistical. But now I’m hurtling down the path that leads to the debate regarding mans free will vs. fate in the context of an omnipotent God. And I’m just not up for that right now!

From Salon.com War Room - No spy probe? It was the Decider's decision

2006-07-21T09:38:00.000-04:00

July 18, 2006

When the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility revealed earlier this year that it couldn't investigate the Justice Department's role in approving George W. Bush's warrantless spying program because its lawyers had been denied the necessary security clearances, Democratic Rep. Maurice Hinchey said he wanted to know who made the decision to deny the clearances so that he could "reach out to those responsible for stifling the investigation" and "identify a way for a probe to resume."
It looks like he just got his answer.

At a hearing this morning, Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Arlen Specter asked Attorney General Alberto Gonzales why OPR's lawyers were denied access to the warrantless spying program when "many other lawyers in the Department of Justice had clearance."
Gonzales' response: "The president of the United States makes the decision about who's ultimately given access."
-- Tim Grieve

To the NH Democratic Party upon receiving my 1st Newsletter from them:

2006-07-21T08:58:00.000-04:00

To Whom It May Concern:

I’m a Democrat…I’m a letter writer…I feel I should get off my butt and do some more, and I want to get involved in my local (Meredith Dist. 3) election. So, I found out who the incumbents are and who’s recently signed up to run against them…Somewhere in there I called your office and the nice person on the other end helped me figure a lot of this stuff out. I also signed up for the newsletter.

This is my first newsletter from y’all and I’m sorry, but I must give you a bit of guff! Now, I’ll admit, I have to learn a bit more about this Coburn guy and his proposed gas tax/tax freeze thingy…but do me a favor. You’re flogging the flip-flop thing like a pissed off, un-cool, little kid.

C’mon! We’ve got to be WAY better than that! Look, I’m all for giving it right back to ‘em, but at least we should keep up rhetorically! Use a republican catch phrase that’s been in rotation within the last three years! Flip-flop…I mean…Geeze…don’t mess around, the word is ‘hypocrite!’ Or ‘he has no core beliefs’ or…? I don’t know, give me a day and I’ll come up with at least five better things than ‘flip-flop!’ The fact that y’all used ‘flip-flop’ only makes me believe that ‘He was for it before he was against it’ was discarded as too obvious.

We’ve spent WAY too long letting the ‘other’ guys set both the tone and the topic of discussion, and here you are sounding like a guy in a crew cut and a neck tie in 1968 exclaiming “Far-out!” …Sigh…and to think we’re supposed to be the ‘cool’ ones ;-) …Don’t mince words; don’t buy into the trap of restating the lie! The Democrats need to re-claim the debate! All I see is Democrats reacting, reacting, reacting…time to get on the offensive, time to tell the WHOLE story.

(Don’t’ get me started on the liberal media…ah, if the liberal media and Santa Clause could only muster their powers there would finally be peace in the world.)

And to think it was the Left that taught the Right how to run a successful grass roots campaign…how did we let that one go? Did we get complacent? Personally I think J.Q. Public is tremendously complacent, the other guys just know how to push their ‘social issue’ buttons better, and are shameless in the pushing. That combined with the fact that J.Q Public’s attention span is less than half of one news cycle.

We cannot let ourselves be solely cast in the role as ‘opposition.’ We must grab the middle ground of common sense. We must remake ourselves in the image of the ‘reasonable’ guy. Let the other guys sound hysterical and wring their hands. Let us stand for the collective ‘everyman.’ We must recapture the debate.

Ok. I’ll stop. Sorry. I just want to see us make some gains in this mid-term, in the State of NH and in the country. We need this one. The whole world needs this one. Really, let’s try and not *&$$& it up. So… keep me posted. I’m a Democrat, I want to do something, and I’m a bit pissed off. Keep me in the loop!

"...your own, personal, antichrist..."

2006-07-19T19:16:00.000-04:00

Some days are better than others on the Left side of the fence, and this I think is one of 'em! Not only did the likes of Orin (anti-choice) Hatch come out in favor of expanding federal funding for stem cell research, but...

(Please don't make me explain that you can kill frozen fetus's for fetus-head-soup (or whatever you want) in the private sector already. Funny how Mr. 'I will veto any law that condones killing something' has never bothered to try and pass a law stopping the very same kind of privately funded stem cell research...hmmm... This current boondoggle is about whether or not you can kill frozen embryos higgly-piggly with federal funds...as opposed to throwing just them out with that fruit from last week that's gotten kinda mushy...Hey! How old is that pizza?)

What's more, Ralph Reed failed in his bid for Lt. Governor or Georgia! Anyone who knows me, knows that I've really disliked Mr. Reed since back when he was the head of the Christian Coalition...ah, I remember cutting his picture out of USA Today and sticking push pins into his eyes...good times! Anyway, Mr. gambling-gays-and-sex-are-bad seems to have gotten himself into a pickle over taking money from a convicted felon (Jack Abramhoff)! Yep! Seems that an American Indian gambling casino gave the money to Ralph through Jack, in order to wage war against another gambling casino! Who, not coincidently, was the first casino’s competition! Did I mention that there's a special place in hell for religious hypocrites? Anyway...Ralph Reeds defeats are my joys! Mean? Vindictive? You’re damn right!

A.C. is a felon, or should be...

2006-07-18T14:35:00.000-04:00

A reply to the A.C. story from Salon below - Chosen as an 'Editors Pick'

I just read about this over in 'fix' section and basically asked the same thing! Why don't they turn over the e-mail to the police or FBI or Secret Service or whomever handles mailing poison through the mail and have 'em kick in her door! Do a little looking around; make sure our A.C. isn't up to something she shouldn't be. There are, supposedly, consequences for making public threats, and taking credit for possible terrorist actions. Wouldn't it be nice (cue Beach Boys) to see A.C. writing her column from inside a prison cell, or in a home for the incurably insane? (…Maybe if we think and wish and hope and pray, it might come truuuuuue…)

From Salon.com War Room - Ann Coulter, felon?

2006-07-18T14:34:00.000-04:00

An envelope containing a suspicious white powder showed up in the mailroom at the New York Times last week. We can't tell if she's joking or not -- really, can we ever? -- but Ann Coulter is claiming that she's responsible.
Raw Story ferrets out the news from an item in Women's Wear Daily's Memo Pad blog. Memo Pad's source at the Times said the powder incident makes Coulter's call for the death penalty for Bill Keller just "a little less funny." "I wonder," the source said, "if she considers herself at all responsible when lunatics read her columns and she says that we should be killed."
Memo Pad asked Coulter about the incident. Her response? "So glad to hear that the New York Times got my letter and that your friend at the Times thinks I'm funny. Good luck in journalism and please send me your home address so we can stay in touch, too."
The white powder turned out to be harmless, but perhaps it's time to fight fire with fire anyway. If Coulter thinks that reporters at the Times should be tried for treason -- and she does -- wouldn't it be fair game to say that Coulter herself should be tried for threatening to use WMD or using the U.S. mail to send threatening communications? Those are federal crimes, and it seems to us that Coulter has just admitted committing one.

-- Tim Grieve

From Salon.com War Room - No spy probe? It was the Decider's decision

2006-07-18T14:33:00.000-04:00

When the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility revealed earlier this year that it couldn't investigate the Justice Department's role in approving George W. Bush's warrantless spying program because its lawyers had been denied the necessary security clearances, Democratic Rep. Maurice Hinchey said he wanted to know who made the decision to deny the clearances so that he could "reach out to those responsible for stifling the investigation" and "identify a way for a probe to resume."
It looks like he just got his answer.
At a hearing this morning, Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Arlen Specter asked Attorney General Alberto Gonzales why OPR's lawyers were denied access to the warrantless spying program when "many other lawyers in the Department of Justice had clearance."
Gonzales' response: "The president of the United States makes the decision about who's ultimately given access."

~Tim Greive

From Salon.com War Room - U.N. report: Iraq on a 100 dead a day

2006-07-18T14:32:00.000-04:00

According to a new United Nations report, nearly 6,000 Iraqi civilians were killed in sectarian fighting in May and June. As Reuters notes, any "estimates of mortality from violence" are necessarily approximate in "a country with barely functioning public institutions where relatives routinely remove the bodies of victims for burial with little legal formality." Still, even as a rough estimate, the U.N. number is more than a little breathtaking. Six thousand deaths in two months is almost 100 deaths a day in a country with just 26 million residents. Adjusted for population differences, that would be the equivalent of a 9/11 about every two and a half days in the United States.
-- Tim Grieve

Respect. (Or why you should tell people to take their religion and shove it up their ass.)

2006-07-18T09:43:00.000-04:00

I was always taught to be polite. You know the old chestnuts ‘if you can’t say something nice, then don’t say anything at all’ and ‘do unto others…?’ I was taught to be tolerant and respectful of other people’s beliefs. I was taught in school that this country had both a ‘freedom to worship in your own way’ and a distinct separation of church and state.

Well, I’ve been thinking.

In this awfully politically correct world I think we’ve given religion way too much leeway. We bend over backwards not to offend this Jew, Christian, Muslim, or Great Spaghetti Monster believer. But they don’t respect us. They don’t tolerate us. They brow beat our politicians they condemn our entertainment, books, and music, they wring their hands, they set themselves up as examples of how to ‘live right’ and then? (See Jimmie Swagart, and for a more recent example, Ralph Reed.) They damn us, they shout at us, they threaten us, and in some extreme cases they shoot doctors, and try to blow us up. These people do not deserve your respect.

And where are the so-called religious ‘moderates?’ I blame them for letting the whacko’s co-opt their faith! So, next time your thinking you’ll keep your mouth shut because you don’t want to offend someone’s faith, well, fuck ‘em! Tell them they can take their lip service to god and shove it up their ass!

So now YOUR thinking…

‘What kind of a faithless heathen is this guy?’

Well, let’s see…NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS!!!

I keep my own council when it comes to God. Why don’t you try it? And, while you’re at it, try and rein in some of the more fanatical followers of your particular faith.

I believe at the core of most faiths is ‘love.’ Love of God and love or your fellow man. And you can’t love someone when all your thinking is ‘damn, this guy is going to hell!’ or ‘I must kill the infidel!’ That type of thinking tends to cloud reason. We all make choices, and we all have to live with the consequences.

If you think I’m on an express train to hell, what’s it to you? Leave me alone. Heal thyself. Tend your own garden. Let he who cast the first stone be free of sin. Do unto others.

Try and be a bit more tolerant you self-absorbed-bat-shit-crazy-motherfuckers! We’ve put up with a lot of your shit over the years and I’ve just about had it. I’m sure there is a special place in hell for religious hypocrites. And that’s the thought that keeps me going, the one that gives me a grin.

Steve McBrian for State Representative!

2006-07-18T09:28:00.000-04:00

Well...that would be fun wouldn't it? I would love to run for office. So, anyone want to give me a big pile of cash-money? C’mon! This could be fun!

Anyway, this morning I was feeling very self absorbed so I Googled 'Steve McBrian' and I found that there is a 'Steve McBrian' running for State Rep. in Indiana's (fightin') 74th district. Here's the link:

http://www.mcbrianindiana74.org/

After reading the other Steve’s web page it's pretty obvious that we're not completely simpatico...ah well, it takes all kinds!

Apparently it even takes people who claim to want less government intrusion in their lives who, in spite of this claim, seem determined to shove their social agenda down our collective throats by trying to ban abortion, gay marriage, and contraceptives. But yeah, they want less government intrusion. Whew! Could you imaging what they would have in mind for MORE intrusion?

Senator Judd Greg (R) NH - Is a Traitor!

2006-07-17T11:34:00.000-04:00

In a recent letter to the Laconia Citizen Senator Greg wrote a letter patting himself on the back regarding the passing of more money for homeland security and intelligence, etc. So, I thought I’d take a page out of the radical right and accuse him of treason! So, I sent this in with no inkling of sarcasm…we’ll see how it flies!

Staying vigilant on homeland security

Judd Greg is a traitor! In his letter to the editor of the Laconia Citizen Senator Greg openly and seemingly gleefully spells out or nations plan to defend our boarders. He gets into exact monetary figures and on which programs the money will be spent. How can he do this? Doesn’t he realize that by writing this letter he is supporting the terrorists and what they stand for? He is, just like the New York Times, giving away the house! How can we protect our boarders if the terrorists know exactly what we’re getting up to? He even specifically mentions an additional 45 million dollars that will be spent on intelligence. Good job Judd! Now they know we’re looking for them! Judd Greg obviously hates America and everything we stand for.

From the American Conservative Blog.

2006-07-17T10:25:00.000-04:00

About fifteen minutes after writing my entry called 'the Other Guy' I found this entry. It's nice to see that someone beside myself figured this one out! This gentleman’s blog described itself as 'pro-conservative anti-socialist' writing.

Friday, July 08, 2005

Dear American Conservative Blog readers, after careful consideration, I have decided that this site can no longer be dedicated to supporting either the current right wing movement in America or the Bush administration. It is extremely unfortunate that sometimes we get so caught up in what we think is right that we are blinded by the truth.I'm afraid that President Bush has betrayed the trust of every American. Democrat and Republican, liberal and conservative. The right wing movement has also betrayed its stated principals of conservatism by supporting President Bush. I know I can't convince ACB readers of these views, so I won't bother trying. I only hope that you will find for yourself that President Bush and the right wing movement have been one big lie. Thank you all and goodbye.
posted by AngryCocker at 11:00 PM

The Other Guy

2006-07-17T09:22:00.000-04:00

Here's a question; how do you have a discussion, or argument if you will, with someone who thinks they are right, you are a radical and all your opinions are colored as such, yet you read the news (several hours a day) and all they do is watch MSNBC for thirty minutes while drinking their coffee in the morning?

Have you ever tried to have a theological discussion with a zealot? It’s a very similar feeling. The political zealot, or more accurately lemming, I have in mind knows what they know and wont be dissuaded, and ironically, they think the same of me. Except, of course, in this particular case I happen to be very well read in mainstream, non-hysterical, news.

Why do conservatives support this administration?

Strangely enough there are still folks out there that think we have a conservative Republican administration. Now, as I understand it, the traditional conservative wants lower taxes, more states rights, less meddling from the federal government, a balanced budget, lower federal spending etc.

Other than lowering taxes how is our current government in any way similar to what I've outlined above? Under the current administration we've experienced record spending (even without a two-front war), we've seen a budget surplus turn into a record deficit, and through a variety of ways they have tried to get their fingers into our lives by championing anti same sex marriage, shutting down planned parenthood, limiting contraceptives, railing against so-called 'activist' (federal AND state) judges (at least when it suits them), and a completely silly flag burning amendment. Not to mention a long line of politically motivated non-binding resolutions like the resent 'prevail-in-the-war-on-terror-support-our-troops' boondoggle.

You can lead a horse to water…

I guess the question becomes how do we start to make people pay attention? And once we have their attention, how do we make them learn, or educate themselves. And what’s more, how do we get them to educate themselves on something that doesn't spoon-feed them their opinion. Unfortunately, at the end of the day, we all have to think for ourselves and we CAN NOT rely on ANY news organization to give us the whole story.

I hate to quote a movie, but here goes; "Democracy is advanced citizenship."

It's time for more of us to step up to the plate, open our eyes, and try to see the true lay of the land. Try to strip away the slimy veneer of politics, use your common sense, and decide for yourself. It seems amazing to me that if you tell the average citizen what he can’t do, he gets PISSED. Tell him what his opinion is via the TV news, and he just buys it wholesale! You should get pissed when someone tells you how to think. But then you need to back that up with some mental shoe-leather. Find out who’s right and who's wrong. You'll probably find the answer lies somewhere in the middle. We live in a gray world that politics tries to make black and white.

Still not willing to get out and find the truth?

Then do us all a favor next election day and stay home. This is the adult table. You kids go play...

Neil Young - self-appionted 'Rush' of the Lakes Region

2006-07-13T13:45:00.000-04:00

A response to (the other) Neil Young's recent letter:

Firstly, I agree with Mr. Young (has to be a first time for everything!) that more people should get involved with letter writing etc. They should also endeavor to get their news from the source (AP, UPI etc. where basically all major news outlets get their 'raw' news), as apposed to talk radio or opinion columns, as they tend to be, you guessed it, opinion! In other words 'not necessarily the WHOLE truth.'

But I ask, why do you print Mr. Young's letters so frequently? (And, as of late, not mine! ;-)) It's not as if he has no other outlet. He has both a column in that local bastion of right wing thought the Weirs Times and a radio show! Give me a column in your paper and I promise never to write you, or any other local newspaper, another letter-to-the-editor! More participants? Maybe Mr. Young should give the rest of us a chance!

Secondly, can anyone tell me what the heck his letter was about? Now, I'm prone to ramble a bit, and I'm no English major, but...this guy changes topics like some people change clothes! The letter starts out asking for more participation from folks in letter writing and call in shows, then inexplicably wanders into a discussion of a nice kid wishing everyone a happy 4th, then waxes reminiscent about 'small town life', then suddenly takes a (right) turn to defend A.C.'s alleged plagiarisms. (You'll have to figure out who A.C. is yourself as I refuse to give that poor excuse for a human any more print than is already attributed to (hint, hint!) her.)

Now, I've read his column in the Weirs Times too, and here too he adopts his 'Pollack-esque' form. It's like reading selected responses to a letter that you've never read. So how's this guy get all the attention? He has ideas he wants to express, sure, and he likes calling people he doesn't agree with by quaint little nicknames like 'Liberal Lady' and 'Kennedy bum-kisser' in print. But does the (bush-bum-kisser) write well enough to deserve all this exposure? Hmm?

One last thing regarding his defense of A.C., Mr. (bush-bum-kisser) Young wrote:
"Attribution is the right thing to do - I do it all of the time - but when does a universal thought put into print become somebody else's words? Attributed to the Volkswagen commercial - "Writers and callers wanted.""
In fact most 'Universal thoughts' are indeed someone else's words. (see Mark Twain, the Bible, Gen. John Stark, etc.) At that point they're called 'clichés', or for the more revered ones 'wisdom.' Let's take music for example; one of the Beatles songs, 'Yesterday' I think, has been re-recorded by more artists than any other song ever. Does that mean the Beatles (or Michael Jackson in this case) should give up defending their copyright just because the song has become virtually 'universal?' Look, the bulk of columnists out there do what A.C. does every day and never get accused of plagiarism. How come? Oh wait, I know! It's the Liberal Media picking on her and only her right? I knew it! They're always getting up to those dirty tricks!

As for your 'attribution' I'm pretty sure you wouldn't have to 'attribute' your take on the Volkswagen ad because you didn't quote it exactly or represent it as your own idea. What you did falls under the category of 'satire', which, I don't believe, requires any attribution at all. What A.C. did was to re-print, and represent as her own ideas, whole sentences (from several different newspapers) and I believe in one column, whole paragraphs of a report that was not her own. That's plagiarism. Sorry. But really, could we expect any less from A.C.?

Thanks for letting me participate!

Wanted: More participants - by Neil Young

2006-07-13T13:42:00.000-04:00

Laconia Citizen - Letter to the editor - 7/13/06 - by Neil Young

Wanted: More participants

Editor, The Citizen

The suggestion that only a very small percentage of listeners to a radio talk show will ever pick up the phone and become a caller — so it is with folks who read a daily newspaper or weekly — a few become contributors to the "Letters to the Editor" page.

While delivering The Weirs Times on Tuesday, the Fourth of July, a young man at Shaw's Gilford gathering carts in the parking lot was wishing everyone a Happy Fourth of July.

I congratulate Manager Ken for employing such a thoughtful young man.

A couple of days ago my wife asks, "Do you know Normand Goupil?" Is his wife Alyce? Does he live on Warren Street? Did he work for Pike? Yes.

Betty is always stunned at the number of people I know in Laconia (all ages). Well, this is where I have spent my whole life — along with so many others who are natives.

And it saddens me when one of them leaves us — they are part of my (our) history.

A number of years ago friend Paul and I were in Butson's on a Sunday afternoon. Folks were saying hello — calling me by name — me asking them how the children are — some by name.

Paul who is New Hampshire-born says, "You know everybody. I wish I still lived in my hometown." Now when meeting old school "chums" we talk about how we made it to be this old.

One of the loyal listeners and callers to the radio program is fondly called "the liberal lady." Last Saturday she began with wanting to know what we thought of the plagiarism by Ann Coulter. I defended Ann — and later asked: what would the "LL" say about Doris Kerns Goodwin (noted historian and Kennedy bum-kisser) and others of her group who have been named as plagiarists?

Well, now, according to Associated Press Lee Salem, editor and president at Universal Press Syndicate, the company that sells Ann's columns: "There are only so many ways you can rewrite a fact and minimal matching text is not plagiarism. Universal Press Syndicate is confident in the ability of Ms. Coulter, an attorney and frequent media target, to know when to make attribution and when not to."

Attribution is the right thing to do — I do it all of the time — but when does a universal thought put into print become somebody else's words? Attributed to the Volkswagen commercial — "Writers and callers wanted."

Niel Young

Laconia

The Weird Times

2006-07-10T21:36:00.000-04:00

My mom always used to say,

“Don’t run in the house!”
“Stop shaving your sister!”
“No, that's not where mustard comes from.”
“Never blog angry.”

She also used to say,

“Don’t wish your life away.”
“When you're older”
“Well, it's MY house”

And my favorite: "Don't forget to wear your rain-coat"

But I digress...

So I'm sitting here. Am I angry? No…it’s more than that. It’s an understanding that Nothing. Is. The. Same.

I’m sitting here clinging to my keyboard with one hand and griping my...

Beer

with the other wondering how this could possibly happen?

Right here! In our very midst!

So I write this, hoping to put into words the anger, the dismay, the utter horror I felt when I discovered the sinister truth behind the 'Weirs Times'. It all started a few weeks ago…

“The Weirs Times? Heck, I’ve seen it around for years!”
“Gosh, I’ve always just loved the picture on the masthead!”
“You always see it in restaurants and stores around the area.”

Yeah, sure, been around for years. A freebie newspaper I thought to be a kindly little tourist rag.

BUT NO!

As I flipped through the pages of the Weirs Time for the first time I actually felt my soul being pulled through my third eye as I stared into the abyss that is the Op/Ed page of the Weirs Times.

Yes. It sucked that much.

Suddenly I knew exactly how that bat-shit-crazy McCarthy bastard must of felt like! I’d opened my eye’s to another world, a world where wrong was right, up was down…well, you get the picture.

Terror? Sure, there was terror…but there was more, there was exhilaration! Like generations past I’ve discovered there's a traitor in our midst! Nay! A spy! Little did I know the ‘Weirs Times’ is some sort of right-wing propaganda flyer!

Who'd-a-thunk-it?

In the mean time, we’ll keep an eye on the Weirs Times…

redwhiteandbleu...

2006-07-03T23:06:00.000-04:00

Happy Independence Day! Blah, blah, blah...Just keep a weather eye out for those wrapping themselves in the flag ("This man voted against a flag amendment...! etc.), read, question, read some more, get pissed, question...Keep a weather eye out.

PS: speaking of Independence Day...Let's give a big ol' shout out to the French, without whom we would have had a tougher time achieving said day! And they did it by helping us whip those pesky allies of ours, the English!

("It seems we've been bailin' those boys out since double-ya double-ya two...")

Here! Here!

They can't even make a half-way-decent cup of coffee!

Pomme frits, croissant, espresso, wine, great cheese...the French know how to do it! And, except for that whole 'Waterloo' thing, and yeah, there was the 'Maginot Line', but aside from that they've really kicked some ass!

Shit, a Frenchman even invented the fax machine!

Fuck the English and their lame-ass food! Allies indeed! What have they ever given us besides an invitation to leave, taxation without representation, and a reason to re-build Washington...?

I mean...They eat their toast COLD for the love of Pete!!!

Give me a Frenchman and his taste in food, and the world will turn! God Bless America! Vive Le France!

So...how 'bout all you ignorant motherfuckers out there just shut up already...

Yeah, the French, they suck...well what about the English? What about Us? Ask an American Indian how HE feels on 'independence day'...

Sigh...

Happy Independence Day!

Fuck the Dead!

2006-06-30T12:38:00.000-04:00

Ok, ok…that might be a little harsh. Maybe. But after playing Grateful Dead covers for years I kinda got sick of ‘em. But what’s more, I got sick to death of their fans. You know the ones…the ones that seem to compare every piece of music to the dead, they must hold all guitar players (from every genre) up to a special ‘Jerry comparison’ or something…I don’t know…just seemed to get old. Really. Fast.

But now I see I had a point, but about the wrong kind of Dead fan. After I read the story below, I could imagine the sound of Jerry spinning in his grave to be that of a jet engine. I mean, good god, Ann Coulter is a Dead fan? What’s next, a plague of frogs? The radical right has pulled off the biggest heist of all time! They’ve co-opted the Dead! I’d rather be in a scrum with 30 unwashed, patchouli scented, deadheads singin’ That’s It For The Other One out of tune, while shoving used Thai-sticks in my eyes, for the entirety of the rest of my life than to have Ann Coulter on this planet for a single minute more. The woman is poison. And I will speak of her no more.

Ann Coulter's Grateful Dead Sorority Mixer Memories

2006-06-30T12:34:00.000-04:00

posted by: Amelie Gillette
June 29, 2006 - 4:44pm
Ann Coulter, of progressive-stripping-via-book-cover fame, recently gave an interview to Jambands.com, about——what else?——her love of the Grateful Dead.

I'm not kidding. (You can read the entire interview here.)
Apparently, Ms. Coulter was a Deadhead, or at least as close to a facsimilie of a Deadhead that the sisters of Delta Sig would allow:

I fondly remember seeing the Dead when I was at Cornell. It was the day of the fabulous Fiji Island party on the driveway “island” of the Phi Gamma Delta House. We'd cover ourselves in purple Crisco and drink purple Kool-Aid mixed with grain alcohol and dance on the front yard. Wait – I think got the order reversed there: We'd drink purple Kool-Aid mixed with grain alcohol and then cover ourselves in purple Crisco – then the dancing. You probably had to be there to grasp how utterly fantastic this was.

Sounds positively smashing, Ann. Really, just darling. The crazy things you co-eds do! Next thing, you'll tell me you wore different colored bobby socks and no slip to an open enrollment lecture!

Jesus. Leave it to Ann Coulter to make a Grateful Dead concert sound like an alternative to the Delta Mu spring formal after party. Also, "grain alcohol"? What are you, a Prohibition-era bootlegger? Just say Everclear. Then there's this:

Somewhat contrary to the image of Deadheads as hippies, the Dead were huge in my hometown of New Canaan, CT, which is a pretty preppie town. We toyed with the idea of making "Truckin'" our prom song with a "Long Strange Trip" theme, but we ended up with some dorky rainbow theme instead. I tend to associate the Dead with lacrosse players and my favorite fraternities, Fiji and Theta Delt.

Ok, so here's what lives next door to the Grateful Dead in Ann Coulter's mind:
1. Cornell
2. Fiji and Theta Delt (Those are, like, seriously the best frats, guys. I can't argue with her. Go Greeks!)
3. Prom in New Canaan, CT
4. Lacrosse5. Monica Lewinsky (see below)

My collection of Dead tapes, by the way, was the reason I heard one of the Linda Tripp tapes before Ken Starr did. Tripp's lawyer obviously needed to hear the tape before turning it over to the prosecutor, but he only had an old 1950's tape player and couldn't get it to work and Ken Starr wanted the tape the next morning. He was terrified he'd hit the wrong button and erase the evidence. In the wee hours of the morning, it occurred him, a Deadhead himself, that he knew one person in D.C. who definitely had a tape machine. So, at around 2 AM, he called me and asked to come over to use my tape deck.

So, see? Hilary was right. There is a vast right wing conspiracy, except it's mostly about conservatives trying to make the Dead sound as lame as fucking possible.

Dearest Smoker (is that you? I can't see through the haze...):

2006-06-29T13:14:00.000-04:00

Ok, I can understand the sentiment regarding "it's my own life, and I'll live it however..." but when it comes to that phrase being uttered by a smoker (or pederasts or pyromaniacs or Whitney Houston) I have to draw the line. Yeah, you can smoke. Just not near me please. I'm all for separate rooms and the 'gold fish bowls' they make smokers go into in airports...by the way, aren't those funny?
"Look daddy! The last of the great American smoker!"
"don't tap the glass, son, you'll scare 'em away!"
heh, heh......Anyway...go to the 'smoking section' and give us a break. We're giving you one by making a 'smoking section' available in the first place. And if there isn't one...you must decide between: either a nice meal or perhaps a cocktail with some friends or your...butt, cig, coffin nail, gasper, pill, or skag. You know, I take it back! Those DO sound tasty!

I would take the smoking ban to mean 'no smoking in public places' and yes, that includes waiting in line outdoors or hanging out at a concert. Yeah, yeah, just 'cause there's no roof doesn't make it un-public. What smokers have to remember is that they are in an EXTREME minority and, most of us, don't care that you smoke. We would just like you to take it elsewhere. What? You have nowhere else to go? Go home then! What's that? Your wife/husband wont let you smoke inside? Isn't this all starting to tell you something? Far less addictive substances have been made illegal. Such as Heroin, Cocaine, meth-amphetamine, and in some more enlightened states, Planters Cheese Balls...man those are WAY too tasty!

In response to "...all the rules and regulations! Why don't we ban drinking again?" Have you noticed that you can't drink on the sidewalk in front of the bar? In fact, have you noticed that you can't just walk into a store, grab a bottle of liquor, lovingly remove the foil, place it to your lips, and take a long satisfying pull from it? (I bet you want a cigarette right now don't you?) In fact most stores won't let you enter with any open beverage of any kind...don't they love America? Have they never heard of Live Free or Die? Yes, dear reader, they must be communists!! Have you noticed there seems to be very few folks (and even fewer communists) just walking down the street enjoying a nice Mai Tai? That is because there are myriad rules and regulations regarding the consumption of alcohol. In comparison I see hardly a rule regarding smoking. Smokers tend to be one of the most vocal minorities out there and I, for one, am getting a bit tired of having to listen to 'em...and they're breath? Yikes!
But don't worry kids, the likes of Phillip Morris wont be dieing out any time soon. As I understand it the U.S. is probably tailing third for cigarette consumption in the world. I hear Asia and Europe are the ones really 'Live Free AND Dieing' by sucking up a lot of cigarettes not us. (What? We're number THREE? How can that be? USA! USA! USA! ...Umm...wait a minute...) And as it becomes less profitable for the big cigarette companies to support you, you will see the worm turning away from tolerating smoking in public places. Why would they abandon you? Because cigarette smokers are a VAST MINORITY in the United States! Remember that, and try to be polite. Here, have a mint.

Reply to: Bike Week Petition

2006-06-29T11:17:00.000-04:00

(regarding Bike Week '04)

Editor, The Citizen:

(all of Mr. Cayer's words are in quotes)

"Does anyone really believe you can just pass a petition around to scale back or stop bike week? Apparently those who don't understand what bike week is all about seem to think so."

Please enlighten me...what the heck is motorcycle week(end) all about? All I can see/hear are a few races, a bunch of bikers who seem to think they are 'entitled' to the lakes region, and a lot of noise.

"Since when can you legislate where people go, how they get there and how long they stay?"

Ummm...since like forever? I'll bet they wont let you have a bike rally, for any amount of time, at Los Alamos, or runway B of Logan Airport, or Fenway Park, or, well, anywhere 'they' decide you can't congregate. You have to get a permit. And 'they' can decide not to give you one. And if you decide to ignore that, we have a whole judicial system in place to take it from there.

"Does "Live Free or Die" ring a bell?"

Yeah, it's the state motto right? Does 'Vacation State' mean that nobody works in Maine? (I know that's not their state motto, its: Dirigo. Which means 'I direct'. But that doesn't work nearly as well for my point. Ok, how about Kansas. Their motto is: Ad Astra Per Aspera, which means "To the Stars Through Difficulties". Does that mean everyone is an astronaut in Kansas? Or at least big Star Trek fans?) Oh, and 'Live Free Or Die' is OUR motto. Not the motto of tourists everywhere...

"I suppose you can stop the street vendors by not issuing peddlers permits. But if you believe that bikers come together to spend a week because of the vendors you fail to understand who bikers are and why they gather."

Yes! You're absolutely right! ...I still don't understand...

"The fact is vendors follow the bikers."

Everywhere? That must become somewhat of a drag after a while...

"Anyone who believes they can stop bikers from riding to a certain area at a certain time is kidding themselves."

Well, once again I think your wrong as to whether or not you can stop 'em. WILL they stop them is another question all together.

"Bikers are a close community. Ever witness bikers pass each other on the road and wave to each other? It's not because they recognize each other personally. It's because they recognize another biker. Total strangers acknowledging each other because of what they drive."

And your point is? I watched Sesame St. when I was a kid too! "...One of these things is not like the other... it's a motorcycle Mr. Noodle!"
...wow... I wave at Ford drivers too...but I drive a Chevy! Drives 'em nuts! What were we talking about?

"How about the bikers who return with their families in their cars and mini vans to spend their time and money. What message are you sending them? We'll like you more if you leave the bike home?"

Umm...this is a trick question right? I'll guess: yes? Or more precisely ‘don't all of you come on your motorcycles all at once.’

"Remember NH is a tourist state. Lose the tourist, lose your revenue."

The question has been posed, and the answer has not been forthcoming, as to just how much the state makes on the whole affair. After figuring in the extra police, the strain on the infrastructure, the extra hospital staff and emergency personnel, and the cost of the endless patience of those of us who just wished we could just hear ourselves think, I can't see how the state is gaining any revenue at all.

"It might even be suggested that an effort to stop bikers from coming could have quite the opposite effect. By bringing attention to your cause, you may end up rallying even more bikers to come to your community next year just to show their support for each other and the rally. You think 300,000 bikers is a lot? There's plenty more where they came from."

Oooohhhh! Threats! Now this is getting good! I think you've seen Blazing Saddles one too many times! I can see Slim Pickens now! "We'll ride into town! A-whoopin'-and-a-hollerin'..." heh, heh...yeah, yeah, ok...settle down now.

"I managed to get up there at least once all 10 days this year. I was there the first weekend and witnessed something interesting. As anyone who was there will agree, there were many many bikes there for the
first weekend. The crowds were fairly large all over. The nice weather had a lot to do with that. But what was interesting was how there were no road blocks or traffic patterns, yet the traffic flowed well. People were being very polite and well behaved. I saw no trouble anywhere. And it all happened with very little police presence to be seen."

I will concede this point to you! The 'first' motorcycle weekend went very smoothly. And I too think it had to do with the nice weather. I think it dispersed folks a bit farther a field. Perhaps to have a nice ride in the beautiful country...ahh...

"The following weekend there were the usual blocked off streets and traffic patterns which get people good and frustrated and you wonder why you start having problems. And what was the idea behind one way traffic on Rollercoaster Road? It almost seems at times as though there is an unspoken policy to make it difficult for bikers by making it hard for them to get around in hopes of discouraging them from returning."

I'm sure there were a lot more people around for the second weekend, added to the fact that everyone goes to the Weirs 'cause that's where it's 'going on'...right? And, by the way, I'm with you on that whole Roller Coaster road thing...what WAS that about?

"Actually I think bikers may be starting to change motorcycle week on their own. They are choosing to show up the weekend before the traditional bike weekend so they don't have to deal with traffic patterns, blocked roads and dare I say the watchful eye of "big brother"."

Aww, man, we're sorry! Next year we'll send all the cops home, evacuate our homes and just let you nice kids have a good time! Our bad!

"Which goes to prove my point, the only people who truly control bike week are bikers."

Bikes don't control people, people control bikes, and they're bikers, and they're in control of their bikes, when they're at bike week,
controling...I'm sorry, what were we talking about?

"If you think having 300,000 plus people come to your area for a week and drop a few million dollars into the economy is a problem, lets hear your ideas for how to raise revenues in a state that relies on tourism for revenues."

Just how much revenue does the state make during that week compared to, say, the same week just on the seacoast? Or any given week in Lincoln during ski season? I think the state would get along just fine thank-you-very-much! Remember this whole big bike week thing is a relatively recent event.

But you're missing the point. The point of the petition is to keep a handle on the whole thing. Did they say that you couldn't come a week early? Nope! They just didn't want the vendors to set up that early. And by your own admission 'the vendors follow the bikers.' Remember? Then I said "all the time?" and it was pretty funny? Remember?

"Since the state reaps the benefits through taxes..."

Hey wait! Is there a 'hey your on a motorcycle' tax at the NH boarder? I thought we just had one-way tolls...

"...the state should share in more of the expenses for the week."

SHARE more of the expenses?!! Who in your 'check my ride...recognize!'
group of bikers is picking up even a modicum of the expenses now? Oh wait! Let me guess, you go out and...well, no, not you. You live here and presumably pay taxes. Did you pay an extra "I'm going to bike week tax"? I didn't think so. So where is your share of the cost?

Anyway, a biker comes to NH and will probably pay for a hotel, buy dinner, have a couple drinks, and buy a fanny pack or something from a street vendor...Except for the vendors, who (as we've established) follow bikers around and pay for a permits, all those businesses are there the whole rest of the year and pay the same taxes whether or not they are open for bike week. It seems to me the state is picking up the WHOLE tab now. Maybe if the bikers had to share in the cost of the event they would appreciate our LENDING them the lakes region for a week.

"It would be a drop in the bucket for the state and a great return on investment. It shouldn't fall back on the local community alone. Bike week is a good thing for the state as a whole. Let's put more effort towards solving problems, not creating them. Bike week can't be turned on and off like a light switch. Perhaps the best solution is to accept that it is here to stay and deal with it. As long as bikers decide they want to gather at the big lake in NH for a week in June, there will be a bike week."

I have absolutely no doubt bike week (end) will always be around in some form. And your right, we should look "towards solving problems, not creating them." But I think, for many residents, the problem lays a couple sentences down when you say, "Perhaps the best solution is to accept that it is here to stay and deal with it." I think that is precisely the attitude that has driven some residents to start the afore mentioned petition.

In response to the essay ‘A Brutal Reminder’.

2006-06-29T10:25:00.000-04:00

(originally printed in the Laconia Citizen 6/29/04)

Dear Sir or Madam:
Don’t delude yourself with visions of flying flags, hotdogs, and children holding their parents hands regarding your ‘Churchill-like’ view of the ‘war on terror’ (we will fight them on the land, on the sea…blah, blah, blah…). You, and everyone else seem to neglect to mention what the most important factor in this ‘war on terror’ is: Why are they so mad at us?

As far as I can tell there are two major reasons and a myriad of smaller ones. The first, the oldest, and the most discussed, is our support of Israel. I’m not condoning or condemning our support Israel, but the ‘A-number-one’ reason for middle eastern, or radical Islamic terrorists to even care about us at all is our support of Israel.

The second reason is far less complicated. It’s the same reason a Confederate soldier gave to a Union soldier when asked why he was fighting. ‘Because you’re here!’ We’ve been involved in the Middle East for decades, and I’m sure all our meddling has made some folks rather cranky.

We’re not innocents in this. We’re all Americans and are, by proxy, responsible for whatever shenanigans our government gets up to in order to keep the oil flowing for our new SUV’s. I too feel saddened by the execution/murder of Mr. Johnson and my condolences go to his family, and your right, none of us are safe anymore. But we will never have a solution to the problem of people willing to sacrifice their own lives, or the lives of innocents, to make a ‘political statement’ until we can provide some concrete solutions to the problems that have been festering in the Middle East for the last 90 years. That’s right 90 years! The west has been fooling about in that region at least since WWI. Remember thy history! Terrorism did not spring out of a vacuum, or start yesterday.

I am in no way condoning the actions of these people, but we should walk a mile in their shoes before trying to find a solution to our mutual problems.

What’s done is done. And some of what is done is concretely our fault. We can’t take back our support of Israel, we can’t take back our support for Saddam during the Iraq/Iran war (and after), we can’t take back our support/creation of Osama Bin Laden during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan (remember kids Afghani Freedom Fighters = Taliban! They were/are the same guys!), we can’t take back our support of the Shah of Iran and his tyrannical ‘democratic’ government, our British friends can’t take back their decades long occupation of Iraq, and we can’t take back our current occupation of Iraq. But what we can do is remember these things when trying to come to a solution and not act like our hands have never gotten dirty.

Hi there!

2006-06-28T14:36:00.000-04:00

Welcome to 'the American Why!' Just wanted to let anyone who happens to stumble onto this page that the posts below essentially represent the last couple years worth of printed 'letters to the editor'...more or less...unfortunately, when I was posting them, I did it in reverse order! so replys to my letters come BEFORE my letter does, and a couple letter re: the last pres. election are right at the top, and a letter re: the houses recent 'non-binding' shinanigans are at the bottom...ah, well. I'm new to this. I'll get it together, eventually! In the mean-time I'll probably add more stuff, perhaps in order this time, but who knows!
~steve

Re: Larry Wyatt - Liberals lost the election

2006-06-28T14:23:00.000-04:00

(Originally printed in Laconia Citizen 9/1/04)

Mr. Wyatt,
You said in your letter that if I were “well-informed you would know that 78% of the American public do not want gay marriage.” Once again, dear respondent, your missing my point. I am perfectly aware of these statistics. It still doesn’t make it right. It still leaves me with the conclusion that, by your admission, 78% of you are homophobes! And as for everyone’s denial, not one of you who have responded has given me the slightest proof that you’re not. You simply rely on the fact that you’re in the majority. Yes, majority rule is ‘Democracy in action’ as I’ve said in these pages. But, for a bunch of folks who say they voted based on ‘moral issues’ it seems pretty funny that you’re so very prejudiced and willing to take refuge in the crowd.

You then went on to say; “…If you were well-informed, you would know that 62% of the American public do not want abortion on demand, financed by the federal government, and implemented by liberal federal judges.” You’re right about the majority not wanting ‘abortion on demand’. I don’t think anyone, even the liberal apparitions that disturb your sleep, want abortion used as birth control. And I’m assuming that’s what you’re getting at. The stat that you fail to list is that the majority of people also still want it available in certain situations, such as rape and health issues to the mother. As for your ‘liberal judge’ comment…well, what can I say? We didn’t vote for these guys. But many of the people we did vote for appointed these guys. And just because you’re upset that the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled in favor of gay marriage, we now have ‘liberal judges’ with ‘activist agendas’?

As I understand it here’s what happened: the Mass legislature was considering allowing civil unions for same sex couples, but wasn’t sure if having two standards for legally binding two adults would be allowed under the Massachusetts Constitution. So they kicked it up to the Mass Supreme Court for a ruling. The Supreme Court said, “No, under the Mass Constitution a double standard is not allowed”. That’s it. Now they’re all ‘activist judges’? It’s so easy to just dismiss ‘the other guy’ if you have a good label for them isn’t it? Like ‘trial lawyer’ or ‘liberal’…

Then it was: “If you were well-informed, you would know the United States is the only country that can ultimately defend freedom around the world, and yes, by itself if needed.” Whether they want it or they don’t eh?!

One more time (again with feelin’!) no WMD’s, no demonstrable terrorist ties, not one Iraqi on any 9/11 planes…wow we’re so nice! They did nothing for us, and we’re still giving them ‘freedom’! So far they get the freedom to be kidnapped by criminals, shot at by insurgents, and bombed…but wait! That’s not all! They get no electricity, no sewer, no jobs, their cities and their bureaucratic infrastructure, necessary for what we understand to be ‘normal life’, all destroyed as well. I guess I have a different definition of ‘freedom’.

And ya brought it on home with: “I am a Republican, proud of it, and in your eyes probably not very politically correct, but please, don’t insult my intelligence and that of the Republican "majority" by telling us we are ill-informed.” No, I have no problem with your ‘political correctness’. I just think you need to reexamine the ‘morals’ and ‘values’ your party is always so happy to bandy about. What ever happened to values like tolerance, or empathy and ‘loving your neighbor’ or ‘do unto others’? I don’t think there’s an ‘except if’ in any of those values or statements. Am I insulting your intelligence? Not on purpose. I think your doing yourself a disservice by not, at least, taking into consideration that there’s people who think ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ have different shades than you do, and then examining them carefully. At the very least use the excuse ‘know thy enemy’! but get your information first hand. Not from a sound bite or a political hack or just one newspaper. You have to really dig around to find the ‘whole’ story. I’m not innocent either, but I try to find as many sources, left AND right, as I can.

And in the light of your telling me to ‘get over it’, you may chuckle when I once again point out that just because you’re in the majority, it doesn’t mean your morally correct.

Another reply to either 'Stranger in a strange land!' or my 'gay marriage' letter...who knows?: Liberals lost the election by Larry Wyatt

2006-06-28T14:20:00.000-04:00

Originally printed in Laconia Citizen 12/1/04)

Editor, The Citizen:
This letter is in response to Stephen McBrian. With all due respect, I think you are the one who is ill-informed. If you were well-informed you would know that 78% of the American public do not want gay marriage. If you were well-informed, you would know that 62% of the American public do not want abortion on demand, financed by the federal government, and implemented by liberal federal judges. If you were well-informed, you would know the United States is the only country that can ultimately defend freedom around the world, and yes, by itself if needed. Germany and France will not keep us free of tyranny, nor will the United Nations.
I am a Republican, proud of it, and in your eyes probably not very politically correct, but please, don’t insult my intelligence and that of the Republican "majority" by telling us we are ill-informed.
The Democrats and the liberals lost the election. So in your own words Mr. McBrian, get over it!
Larry Wyatt

Re: Steven R. Snow - Still the Same Country

2006-06-28T14:11:00.000-04:00

(Originally printed in Laconia Citizen 11/22/04)

It's still the same country? Unfortunately it is...we still have the same &^%$& president, we still have a republican dominated house and senate, we still have a republican majority of governors and the Supreme Court? It's just too depressing to bring up... Yes, you're right. Nothing much has changed. I think that was my point. It's one thing to have an election decided by the Supreme Court, it's another thing to have just barely half of the American people 'rubber stamp' the mess that is this once and future administration.

I couldn't see how the American public, given the overwhelming facts, could still vote for this guy. And after a bit of reflection, what I've decided is that the American public was ill informed. We, as a people, need to reach out and get our news from anywhere other than the TV and political ads. My father in law just said to me the other day; "what's the difference? The TV and the papers have the same news." Well that's the problem. The newspaper can spend several columns or even pages discussing the (new four letter word) 'nuance' of a given topic. The TV gives you, at best, a sixty second summery. We can’t survive on news bites...we need a meal.

Mr. Snow said in his response to my letter "Why did Mr. McBrian call people homophobes, just because they reaffirmed what nearly everyone has understood since time immemorial, that marriage can only be between a man and a woman?"

Nearly everyone? Time immemorial? Oh! Ok, I see...then we should bring back the prohibition of interracial marriages, outlaw divorce, and generally turn back the clock on all things regarding marriage? And while we're at it, let's take away women's right to own property and to vote too! And yes, those who oppose gay marriage are homophobes. Tell me I'm wrong! It's like saying "I'm not prejudiced against black people, I just don't think they should be able to marry". The only reason I can see for this attitude is as I said before: they're homophobes. The whole 'gay marriage' issue ends up just being a 'safe' or, dare I say, 'chic' way of expressing it. What is the problem? Is it 'the church'? Gay marriage has nothing to do with 'the church' in any way shape or form. For that matter, if the church marries you and you don't get a state marriage license, that marriage isn't legal. There is nothing telling the church that they have to marry gays, any more than there is a law telling me I must get married in a church. Oh, and as for the Bible (Leviticus 18:22 I think...), if you buy the 'homosexuality is against the law of god' thing, then you better take the rest of Leviticus at face value too. It says that eating shellfish is a big no-no too. So, looks like a whole bunch of you will be sharing a Jacuzzi with a gay man in hell! I ask you all, once again, what is it that bothers you all so much about two dudes or two gals kissing? They're in love and want the same legal protection we take for granted. And yes, we take it for granted. We must if the divorce rate is climbing to 50%. So get over it! No one is going to make you go to 'gay school' or something. (And no, I'm not gay...or am I? Heh, heh...)

Furthermore, you point out that the defeat of Roe V. Wade would simply put the onus back on the states. Well, then how can you support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage when, as we've unfortunately seen, the states already have the power to ban it themselves? You can't have it both ways...
As I said at the beginning of this decade, 'tolerance' should be out new motto...apparently it's actually in-tolerance. And it's too bad really, because Americans really are a nice bunch of folks...once ya get to know most of us. Oh, and by the way, no I'm not moving to Canada. And it's not because it's not a nice place. I like it right here. And as so many conservatives like to say: 'America, love it or leave it...' but they forget the rest of the quote (and I'm paraphrasing) '...but give me the courage to stay and change it for the better...'

Stranger in a strange land - A reply! by Steven R. Snow

2006-06-28T14:09:00.000-04:00

(originally printed in Laconia Citizen 11/4/04)

Still same country
Editor, The Citizen:
I'm not sure why Stephen McBrian felt like he had awakened in a different country Wednesday morning. After all, nothing much really has changed. George W. Bush is still the President, and the Republicans still have majorities in both houses of Congress, although the majorities are slightly larger now. We lost a Republican governor in this state, and the state went for Kerry, which should have made Mr. McBrian happy. Mr. McBrian thinks that voting for President Bush is worse than voter fraud? May I infer that he would have condoned election fraud by the Democrats if it had resulted in the defeat of President Bush? I sure hope that is not what he meant. Why did Mr. McBrian call people homophobes, just because they reaffirmed what nearly everyone has understood since time immemorial, that marriage can only be between a man and a woman?
As for Roe v Wade, he spreads a misconception that women will lose the right to abort their pre-born babies if that ruling is overturned. Actually that is not generally true. It would mean only that jurisdiction over abortion law would revert to the states, the way it was before Roe v Wade. In New Hampshire, for example, all of the state's abortion laws were repealed during Jeanne Shaheen's tenure in the Governor's office, so even if Roe v Wade were to be overturned, New Hampshire women would continue to enjoy that right. There may be some states with laws against abortion still on the books, but those laws could be repealed if the majority of citizens of those states want them repealed.
A conservative Supreme Court could be good for liberals, too. If the Court truly interpreted the Constitution literally (the dream of most true conservatives!), then it would act to protect the states and the people from an overly powerful central government, whether that government was controlled by conservatives or liberals. Since the Constitution reserves the power to declare war to the Congress, one could envision that strict interpretation of the Constitution might restrain the President from entering into a war not supported by the Congress. Mr. McBrian might appreciate that, I think. If not, Canada is not far away, Mr. McBrian. You might like it better there.
Steven R. Snow

Stranger in a strange land...

2006-06-28T13:57:00.000-04:00

(originally printed in Laconia Citizen 11/4/04)

I woke up Wednesday morning feeling like I had awakened in a different country. I thought my worst nightmare was the possibility of voter fraud. This is far worse. Who knew that so many people were jingoistic homophobes who don't read? I know that now because if anyone read the occasional paper instead of allowing their opinions to be formed by sound bites or network news, they would know what the administration gets up to, and if they weren't homophobic there wouldn't be eleven states banning gay marriage, and if they weren't jingoistic they wouldn't have rubber stamped the war. So let's bid a fond farewell to Roe Vs. Wade, affirmative action, fiscal responsibility, and our personal rights and say hello to the new draft, more war (Iran anyone?), more spending, more lost jobs, more tax breaks for corporations, and an ever growing deficit.

On behalf of my son, I would like to say; Thanks everyone! Thanks for the crushing debt I'll grow up with and have to pay for, thanks for the looming specter of a draft, thanks for the open ended war on terror (An aside from Dad: Did anyone notice that both of the U.S. cities that were actually attacked by terrorists went for Kerry? Apparently, they don't feel so safe with Mr. Bush.), and thanks for the (possibly) four new Supreme Court judges that, given the current feeling in the land, will certainly take away a woman's right to choose. Thanks America! Peace (is really) out!

Stephen McBrian

Same sex marriage: what’s the big deal?

2006-06-28T13:54:00.000-04:00

(originally printed in Laconia Citizen 2/11/04 and, in edited form, the NH Union Leader)

In the following paragraphs I would like to address some of the issues I’ve been hearing repeatedly regarding the issue of same sex marriage.

The Sanctity of marriage: What ‘sanctity’? How can you even bandy about terms like ‘sanctity’ in a country where the divorce rate sits at a solid 60%! SIXTY PER CENT!!! You read it right! Heck, maybe if we allow a few other people into the ‘marriage club’ we can bring that number down! Furthermore marriage is a civil institution that is then sanctified, if one chooses, in the church, synagogue or mosque of ones choice. For instance, a Justice of the Peace married my wife and me. Does that mean our marriage is some how sub-par? And that, by my support of same sex marriage; I will some how ruin the sanctity of the Laconia Country Club where the service was held? And what’s more, I better not find that ONE of you that are against same sex marriage has been divorced or had their marriage annulled! And if you did, you better not have re-married! Sanctity of Marriage INDEED!

Without children there is no Marriage: This one really gets my goat! So, let me understand this, if my wife and I never have kids our marriage is a sham? I don’t think I’m alone in thinking that statement ridiculous, and pretty damn annoying. There are also the recent studies that tell us there are more than 150,000 same sex couples raising kids in the U.S. today.

We want to promote strong family values: Conservatives should be jumping for joy! Allowing same sex marriages would just promote family stability! And family stability promotes strong family values! And that’s what I’m hearing those opposed to same sex marriage saying they so desperately want! And remember folks, we (supposedly) have a separation of church and state, so ‘family values’ does not necessarily mean ‘Judeo-Christian’ values.

The Bible says homosexuality is wrong: Yeah, yeah, yeah, there is a mention of that in Leviticus (Lev. 18:22 to be precise). Leviticus also says some other cool things too! For example: eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 10:10), Lev. 20:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight (not only will Mao brand you an intellectual for wearing glasses, but God doesn’t want to ‘see’ you either!), it also allows that I may ‘…buy slaves from the nations that are around…’ (Lev. 25:44) I think, perhaps, we should start with ‘…do unto others…’ with a heavy dose of ‘…let he who cast the first stone…’ and go from there.

All you need is Love: What in the heck bothers everyone so much about this? I just don’t understand! This really isn’t a ‘moral’ question. I think it’s more of a legal one. Same sex couples would like to enjoy the same rights and privileges that any other legally bound couple has in this country. Would you deny a loved one visitation rights if they were in an accident just because they’re the same sex? Would you deny them health insurance (and don’t say AIDS will cost us a fortune, or I’ll start quoting the health care costs related to smoking! Trust me, there are a lot more smokers than people sick with AIDS.), or the ability for them to inherit their loved ones possessions just because they’re the same sex? When did being in love, and wanting to spend the rest of your life with one person become such a horrible thing?

Why are people so afraid of gay folk? They’re not vampires!

“Whatever you do don’t touch ‘em…or you become one!”

C’mon! If you believe that: Hey! Look there’s a rainbow! Did you know that Santa helps the Easter Bunny collect the leprechaun gold that’s in the pot right at the base of that rainbow?

I just don’t understand.
From now on, if anyone asks, I am a gay man married to another man and we’re raising a child together! And if you don’t like it go burn a bull on the alter of sacrifice so it ‘…may present a pleasing odor unto the lord…’ (Lev. 1:9) and pray for my families’ damnation. I know I’ll be praying for the scales to fall from your eyes.

FYI: ‘Turn Signals’

2006-06-28T13:51:00.000-04:00

(originally printed in Laconia Citizen 3/11/04, read on-air at NHPR 6/16/06)

I’ve just learned something that I must let all of you in on!

The other day I discovered a switch on the steering column in my car that, when shifted to an ‘up’ position, causes a little light on the right-front and right-back corner of my car to blink.
“How curious.” I said.
I looked this up in the owner’s manual and apparently it’s called a ‘turn signal’.
“This really is fascinating stuff! I should have read this year’s ago!” I shouted.
As I read on, the book revealed to me that if I shifted the switch to a ‘down’ position it would do the same thing for the little lights on the left-hand side of my car.
“Amazing!”

Now I’ve been driving for years in NH and I hardly ever notice these ‘little blinking lights’ on other cars. Perhaps these lights are some special option only available on my car? The car I drive is, after all, from Japan. As it turns out, every car sold in the U.S. comes with these ‘turn signals’ standard! So, now, I was wondering what are these blinking lights for? What is this ‘turn signal’ thingy anyway?

With that question in mind I sat down and did some very extensive research. I did a search on Nexus/Lexus, consulted with AAA, and even put in a call to Click and Clack at ‘Car Talk’, and this is what I found out: it seems that these ‘turn signals’ are there to actually ‘signal’ your intent to ‘turn’! Did you guys know this? I was amazed!
I asked them, “Do you mean that I don’t have to just guess what the guy in the car in front of me is up to?”
“That’s right!” they said.
“Let me get this straight; there is a system in place to allow a car in front of me to telegraph, if you will, his or her intentions through this system of blinking lights?” “Indeed!” They replied.
“Incredible!” I raved. “It truly is a great time to be alive!”

Let the word go forth! Shout it from the mountaintops! There is a way, when driving, to ‘signal’ your intent to ‘turn’! And the little switch that many folks seem to accidentally hit in the middle of a turn, or apparently know nothing about, is indeed the way to let people know where and when your turning!

Use your turn signals! And use them to signal your intent to turn, not just while your turning!

P.S. and while I’m at it, those little white lines in parking lots are there to park in between, not over!

Feed free or die!

2006-06-28T13:48:00.000-04:00

(response to letter printed in Laconia Citizen)

Ms. Cote in her letter of the 15th was bemoaning the possibility of paying $1000 fines for leaving her bird feeder up all summer. She feels that her rights are being trampled. Her letter reminded me of another letter complaining about the possibility of having to wear a helmet whilst riding a motorcycle. That person too felt their rights were being trampled. Well, if you’re willing to pay the bill, you can keep your ‘rights’ in tact. Here’s what I mean:

If a bear comes into the neighborhood to eat out of your bird feeder, and destroys something (of yours or your neighbors), or gets into your garbage, or kills a pet, or gets into someone’s home, or (god forbid) attacks somebody, please don’t call the forestry service or the police. And if you do, expect to receive a bill for their services. You exercised your ‘right’ to leave that feeder up. If you would like someone to take care of the bear problem YOU can pay to have it removed. It will also be YOUR responsibility to recompense for any damage done to your neighbor’s property. Same thing goes for the guy without the helmet. If you get into an accident, and your not wearing a helmet, your insurance company should cut you off, you should have to pay for your ambulance ride, for the police, for the services of the emergency response team, your hospital stay, your emergency room visit, etc.

I know it seems odd, but sometimes laws are enacted (or should be) for the benefit of the public as a whole. Not to persecute backyard ornithologists, or irresponsible motorcyclists.

PS: …and I don’t wanna hear any of you giving me that whole ‘Live Free Or Die’ song and dance that some folks like to trot out whenever they find it useful or convenient…I’m sure that motto was adopted by the governing body of NH and may even be mentioned as such in our state constitution. So unless you’re willing to dissolve the state government and the constitution that it upholds (all in the name of a motto that was selected and adopted by the same governing body) please give it a rest. What’s more, the motto was ‘coined’ by Major General John Stark (Revolutionary War) in a note sent to a reunion of his command that he was unable to attend. Those words are: “Live Free Or Die – Death is not the worst of evils.” He spoke those words, I’m assuming, in reference to the War of Independence and his belief that death was preferable to living under a ‘tyrannical’ rule. Fast forward to the present, I’m pretty sure that having to wear protective headgear and the inability to feed birds in the summer time doesn’t fall under the heading of ‘tyrannical rule’ do you?

We need a flag amendment?

2006-06-28T13:46:00.000-04:00

(responce to letter printed in Laconia Citizen)

We need a flag amendment – just like we need a non-binding resolution to win the ‘War on Terror.’ Hey, does everybody’s arm hurt from patting yourselves on the back?

In a recent letter Mr. Allen Gurney wrote; “"Old Glory," a nickname for our flag and all of us should be proud of having such a beautiful and loving flag, a symbol of the United States of America. So, we all should pray that bill SJR12 will pass and be done with it.” I agree it’s a grand looking flag; it comes when I call, never tracks mud in the house, yes, all in all a very loving flag…(down Old Glory! What I tell you about getting on the furniture?)…But seriously, folks…

What’s the point of passing shrill ‘oh-my-god-we-must-protect-the-sanctity-of-our-flag’ measures when we still allow “Old Glory” to be printed on t-shirts, bumper stickers, and product advertisements? Personally I think using the flag for symbolic political reasons, such as burning in protest, (or trying to pass holier-than-thou flag protection legislation for the sake of re-election) to be far more palatable than seeing ‘Old Glory’ plastered across the background of a Harley Davidson poster, or on a ‘these colors don’t run’ bumper sticker. Both of which are cynically preying on your patriotism to make a buck. That’s disgusting.

The crass commercialization of our national symbol is what you should be getting all up in arms about, and banning that type of exploitation is a piece of legislation I could get behind. Until then, I expect all you flag protection supporters to start treating our ‘national symbol’ with the proper respect. This would include the removal of any stickers depicting the flag from your cars, refusing to buy products that use the flag as a marketing tool and the disposal of all such products currently in your households (such as t-shirts, lighters, sparklers, mugs, etc.), properly dispose of tattered and or faded flags (this means either burning or burying I believe) and replace them with new ones. And remember the flag should be taken in every night, properly handled and not allowed to touch the ground. If you have a flag being displayed flat on a wall the blue field should always be in the upper left portion of the flag. I’m sure, as patriots, and lovers of our ‘beautiful and loving’ flag all of you who support this bill already follow all these rules and have the utmost respect for our flag and it’s image.

There are many ceremonial rules regarding the handling, care and display of our flag, and they can be located anywhere from a Boy Scout manual to the Internet. If SJR12 will end the flag being considered a great idea for a t-shirt or a television ad, if SJR12 ends the blatant commercial exploitation of our national symbol, come talk to me. Until then I would posit this is nothing more than a politically motivated legislative campaign used to make dupes and fools of those who really want to see the flag treated with respect.

*SALON.COM EDITORS PICK!

Non-binding Resolutions?

2006-06-28T13:31:00.000-04:00

I’m writing in reference to the recent non-binding resolution passed by the House of Representatives that declared our ‘intent to win the war on terror’ and our ‘support of the troops’ etc.

Um, so, if it’s like, ‘non-binding’ what’s the point? Could it be (gasp!) that they’re playing politics! No! Not the Republicans! Only Democrats do that TO Republicans…not the other way ‘round! I know this because I keep hearing Republicans say that, so it must be true…right? Ok. It’s either the Democrats or the ‘Eastern Liberal Media!’ Yeah! That’s it!

SIDEBAR: (Ahh, if there only were a Liberal Media…hmmm…(fade in “Wouldn’t It Be Nice” by the Beach Boys) But, obviously, there isn’t ‘cause if there were a liberal media don’t ya think it would lean more to the left, would be sanitized of any ‘conservative’ points of view, and would actually take the current administration to task for it’s alleged misdeeds? Well? I’m waiting… And if there really is a Liberal Media, then why do I keep hearing all those Republican talking points from virtually every media outlet? One last thing, take a quick peek at who OWNES the large media outlets and see to which party they made donations to. Then come talk to me about ‘Liberal Media.’)

In honor of the great strides they’re making in the House, I would like to announce my own non-binding resolution! I pledge (within the context of said non-binding resolution) that I will make my best effort to appreciate the music and movies of Mariah Carey! I will soon announce this to my wife (who’s not really a fan) and immediately set about accusing her of being ‘Against Mariah!’

Now, I’m not really a fan at all, and I probably will never be, but when I speak at the Mariah Carey fan club dinner and I announce that I put forward legislation (non-binding of course) wherein I pledge to become a Mariah fan, I’m gonna get the big standing-O. And how do you think the fan club will react when I tell them that my wife voted against Mariah appreciation? Voted to ‘cut and run’ from the mellifluous, slightly loopy, character with the dog whistle-like voice that is Mariah? She’ll be lucky to get out of there alive!

Let’s review! What did my non-binding resolution accomplish other than politically embarrassing my wife and painting her into a corner regarding a recording artist that neither of us cares for? Nothing! Now you see what the leaders of the House mean when they say they want a ‘real debate’ about the war. They mean ‘shut up’ about it already. They mean ‘y’all either wid us or agin us.’ It all meant NOTHING. Thanks guys! Heck of a job y’all are doin’!

This latest move is very much like the one pulled by a Republican member of the Senate a couple years ago when the ‘talk on the street’ was suggesting that the administration might want to reinstate the draft. What did that Republican Senator do? Why, he himself put forth a proposal to bring back the draft just so he and others could vote it down and say, “Ya see? Don’t be silly; we’re not bringing the draft back! Look! We just voted not to!” Gosh, that sure seems like playing politics, but I must be wrong. They wouldn’t waste our time and money like that would they? I mean, they’re Republican, they’re supposedly ‘fiscal conservatives’, they would never force us to think one way or the other, they stand for ‘less intrusion’ into our personal lives! Right? They wouldn’t pull a fast one like that just to make a couple points with the public in an election year? Would they? What about our ‘contract with America’? Help us Newt! They wouldn’t let us down like that! Would they? …?