News Roundup: Maybe We Need an 11th Commandment

Well, the republicans have definitely found a loophole when it comes to morality. And it's a lot bigger than asking what the meaning of "is" is. It's a loophole you could drive a cement truck through.

I do not recall ever seeing a group of people identify a concept and adopt it as their own as quickly as the republicans have discovered hypocrisy and encircled it in their warm embrace.

For starters, we have a nice U.S. Senator from Louisiana, David Vitter (R), doing whatever he can to support the hard-working girls in the world's oldest profession, both in Washington DC and in his home state of Louisiana. A hard-working multi-tasker, Senator Vitter, while he was a Congressman, was able to represent his district in the halls of Congress while still having time to chat up DC madam Deborah Jeane Palfrey on the telephone on at least five occasions. Not bad for a man who was elected to replace Bob Livingston, who resigned after an adultery scandal. At the time, Vitter, after heaping praise on Livingtson, went on to say,

"It's obviously a tremendous loss for the state...I think Livingston's stepping down makes a very powerful argument that Clinton should resign as well and move beyond this mess."

So I wonder whether it's as obvious to Vitter that he should also resign, based on his own personal ethics, as outlined so eloquently above in his comments regarding Bill Clinton.

I suppose he'll stay on, since he has released a statement indicating that his wife and his god have forgiven him. That brings up another problem. What kind of egotistical bastard thinks he has his own god? Either way, I have my doubts that morals-impaired Rudolph Guiliani will keep Vitter on as his southern campaign chairman. Rudy once fired his chief of police because he'd been featured on the cover of Time Magazine. "That's my job," Rudy snarled as he showed the newly unemployed police chief the door. You gotta love the guy.

And let's not forget the stumbling McCain campaign. Down in Florida, the McCain campaign co-chair for the state, dedicated anti-gay Florida state representative Bob Allen, offered a male undercover police officer a nice crisp Andrew Jackson in exchange for letting Allen fellate him. Never mind that the idiot propositioned a police officer, Allen's offer was destined for failure. I've seen photographs, and I'm thinking he would have needed to offer something in the middle six figures. Oops ... the middle six figures actually exceeds the McCain campaign's cash on hand. McCain is furious over the speed at which his campaign has burned through it's funds. I'd like to hope the money wasn't all spent in $20 increments. Representative Allen is not quitting though. He says:

"I am not resigning my office because the people elected me and want me to do a good job. I am going to do a good job for them in finishing this term."

So that would explain Bush's decision to serve out his term. These silly bastards think that merely finishing something equals success.

Speaking of the leader of our less-free world, George Bush, acknowledged that some unidentified person in his office leaked the name of a covert CIA agent to the media. Nevertheless, Bush no longer stands by his promise to fire such a person, however. Why should he? It's a lot more fun to wait until someone is convicted and sentenced--that way he can commute their sentence, just like he did with Scooter Libbey.

Republican criminals? Poor, misunderstood good people who have suffered enough.

Everyone else? Well that's what lethal injection is for, stupid. Remember Texas?

Gauging the Pope's Supreme Court

Well, it seems like America's fundamentalists and fascists have finally found a successful strategy when it comes to picking Supreme Court Justices. When in doubt, nothing but a Catholic will do. Can't ask a Supreme Court nominee about Roe vs. Wade? Nominate a Catholic. Bummed out about that pesky establishment clause in the First Amendment? Nominate a Catholic. Sick and tired of brown folks clamoring for equal opportunity? Nominate a Catholic. Get a little queasy imagining what homosexuals might be up to in the bedroom? Nominate a Catholic.

Let's review. Of the eleven Catholic Supreme Court Justices in the history of the United States, five of them currently darken the halls of Supreme Court. They are Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, and Alito. Let's review the impact of the Court's Catholic Cabal (CCC) in recent decisions that have been handed down.

• Upholding the Partial Birth Abortion ban? Catholics yea, all other justices nay.
• Excise a student's free speech rights? Catholics yea, all other justices nay.
• Scrapping voluntary public school desegregation? Catholics yea, all other justices nay.

It goes on and on. Can't somebody just please, make it all go away? We're losing our country here. It's being ripped away, decision by decision. Arggghhhhh.

Mitt Romney Prays at the Shrine of Pat Robertson

For the second time in four months, Mitt takes time out from his busy efforts to be elected the leader of the most powerful secular nation the world has ever known to visit Pat Robertson's psuedo-university. You know which one I'm talking about, the one that has a law school that teaches Commandments one through ten on day one, and issues diplomas three years later, with no apparent transferal of knowledge to its students in the interim, which hasn't been a problem during the current administration, because they hire based on loyalty and not competence. W doesn't mind not being the smartest man in the room, but he gets so damn frustrated when he's clearly the stupidest person present.

Anyway, always wanting to think there best of people, I can only hope Mitt felt a bit slimy while he was on campus at Regent--I would certainly expect that more and more Americans will feel slimy in the presence of Mitt. Here's a nice photo of Mitt exchanging pleasantries with Regent University Chancellor Pat Robertson, the nice god-fearing tel-evangelist who takes time out of his busy schedule to tell us wonderful, loving, Christian things:

"I would warn Orlando that you're right in the way of some serious hurricanes, and I don't think I'd be waving those flags in God's face if I were you, This is not a message of hate -- this is a message of redemption. But a condition like this will bring about the destruction of your nation. It'll bring about terrorist bombs; it'll bring earthquakes, tornadoes, and possibly a meteor." –Pat Robertson, on "gay days" at Disneyworld.

"(T)he feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians." –Pat Robertson

"I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: If there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God, you just rejected him from your city. And don't wonder why he hasn't helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I'm not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that's the case, don't ask for his help because he might not be there." –Pat Robertson, after the city of Dover, Pennsylvania voted to boot the current school board, which instituted an intelligent design policy that led to a federal trial.

"God considers this land to be his. You read the Bible and he says 'This is my land,' and for any prime minister of Israel who decides he is going to carve it up and give it away, God says, 'No, this is mine.' ... He was dividing God's land. And I would say, 'Woe unto any prime minister of Israel who takes a similar course to appease the E.U., the United Nations, or the United States of America.' God says, 'This land belongs to me. You better leave it alone.'" –Pat Robertson, on why Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon suffered a massive stroke.

"Maybe we need a very small nuke thrown off on Foggy Bottom to shake things up" –Pat Robertson, on nuking the State Department.

"That was never in the Constitution, however much the liberals laugh at me for saying it, they know good and well it was never in the Constitution! Such language only appeared in the constitution of the Communist Soviet Union." –Pat Robertson, on the constitutional separation of church and state.

"Well, I totally concur." –Pat Robertson to Jerry Falwell following the Sept. 11 attacks, after Falwell said, "I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say: "You helped this happen."

Evolution? Not Us ...

It's no real surprise the GOP presidential candidates Mike "I Love" Huckabee, Tom "Kill the Immigrants" Tancredo, and Sam "Religious Zealot for Hire" Brownback raised their hands at the Republican Presidential Candidate Debate when asked if they did not believe in evolution.

Huckabee was quoted afterwords as saying "If you want to believe that you and your family came from apes ... "

So there it is, the fundamental (pardon the pun) error Christian fundamentalists make when discussing evolution. Evolution has never claimed that humans descended from Apes. Evolution claims, with extensive scientific evidence on hand, that the great Apes and humans descended from a common ancestor.

The same article mentions that Republican Presidential Candidate Tommy Thompson, after the debate, indicated that he did not believe that employers who believe that homosexuality is a sin should be able to fire homosexual workers for that reason only, despite saying when asked whether he believed that business owners should have this right,

"I think that is left up to the individual business. I really sincerely believe that that is an issue that business people have got to make their own determination as to whether or not they should be."

When the moderator asked him if that was a "yes,", Thompson replied:

"Yes."

Nothing like politics aimed at the lowest possible common denominator.

Morons.

The Stark Truth

Congressman Pete Stark, Democrat from California, has identified himself as an Atheist. According to the Secular Coalition of America, he is the first member of Congress to do so in our nation's history. It's a brave man indeed that will risk everything he has on principle. Take a moment to thank Congressman Stark. The Secular Coalition of America has made it easy to do this by clicking here.

It's a good thing.

Putting Lipstick on a Pig ...

... refers, of course, to this week's new course of action, as described by President Bush during his very important speech to the American people, more of whom will now be off to Iraq to risk life and limb in a fruitless effort to rescue the political legacy of the worst president this country has ever known. And it will be the blood of these brave Americans that tint red the lipstick smeared on the pig by our President.

For the length of the war, until now, Bush has ignored reality, repeatedly claiming he is just following the direction of his generals. Those generals are all gone now, either run off by the foolish leadership of the Defense Department, or sacrificed in favor of a new breed of generals more subservient to Bush's insanity than the previous set.

It is not by coincidence that virtually every "retired" general has voiced serious criticisms of virtually all of Bush's war strategy, while the "current" crew of military leadership are happy doing nothing more than licking Bush's feet, whenever they are able to push Tony Blair out of the way.

The Jefferson Koran: Christian Fundamentalists Prop Up Another Big Lie

As noted almost everywhere, Representative Keith Ellison (D-MN) will be using a Koran once owned by Thomas Jefferson for the photo-op reenactment of his swearing in today.

There are some conservative sites out there, particularly this one, who are implying President Jefferson came to possess the Koran in an effort to better understand his adversary during the U.S. war against the Barbary Pirates, a war that was brought about by Jefferson's decision not to pay money to insure safe passage (as was done during the Adams' Administration).

Bottom line, these bozos are trying to get some mileage out of this story by claiming it indicates Jefferson had no respect at all for Muslims, and that he possessed his Koran merely to help him better understand his enemy.

While I buy into the idea that Jefferson had no respect for the Islam faith (afterall, he certainly didn't express much respect for the Christian faith, either), Jefferson, while still a law student, purchased his Koran in 1765, fully thirty-six years before the 1801 declaration of war against the United States by the Bashaw of Tripoli.

But why let the facts get in the way?

A Congressman Crazier than Dennis Prager, That Ignorant Schmuck?

Can anyone be crazier than Dennis Prager, that ignorant schmuck?

Hard to believe, I know, but it's absolutely true. The Representative from Virginia's 5th district, Republican Virgil Goode, was prompted by an email he received to send a letter to his constituents bemoaning the fact that our current immigration laws allow Muslims to infiltrate this fair land of ours, apparently to the point where, horror of horrors, a Muslim was actually elected to the House from the very, very, weird state of Minnesota. And ... *choke* *sob* ... and he's even going to put his hand on that, that, that, Muslim book, that Koran thingy, when he has his happy little photo-op after taking his oath of office. I mean really, what is this country coming to? Why can't everyone be white, thin-lipped, and tight-assed, just like Congressman Goode? I mean, God created man in his image, so why aren't all Americans created in Congressman Goode's image? Why have we been let down in this way? Is there no justice?

On to the letter from Congressman Dumbass. This is not a joke. He wrote it; he mailed it. He even declined, through a spokesman, to apologize for it. Really. I mean it. Honest.

December 7, 2006

Dear . . . Thank you for your recent communication. When I raise my hand to take the oath on Swearing In Day, I will have the Bible in my other hand. I do not subscribe to using the Koran in any way. The Muslim Representative from Minnesota was elected by the voters of that district and if American citizens don't wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Koran. We need to stop illegal immigration totally and reduce legal immigration and end the diversity visas policy pushed hard by President Clinton and allowing many persons from the Middle East to come to this country. I fear that in the next century we will have many more Muslims in the United States if we do not adopt the strict immigration policies that I believe are necessary to preserve the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America and to prevent our resources from being swamped. The Ten Commandments and "In God We Trust" are on the wall in my office. A Muslim student came by the office and asked why I did not have anything on my wall about the Koran. My response was clear, "As long as I have the honor of representing the citizens of the 5th District of Virginia in the United States House of Representatives, The Koran is not going to be on the wall of my office." Thank you again for your email and thoughts. Sincerely yours,

Virgil H. Goode, Jr.
70 East Court Street
Suite 215
Rocky Mount, Virginia 24151

Open Letter to Dennis Prager, You Ignorant Schmuck.

Okay, I haven't followed your career, due in large part to my complete and utter disregard for right-wing, fundamentalist religious nutbags of any stripe, be they Muslim, Christian, or in your case, Jewish. Can I say up front that I sincerely hope you get shit-canned from the United States Holocaust Memorial Council, you little homophobic, hate-spewing, anti-American, fascist bastard? I guess I can.

To have both the hubris and ignorance to misrepresent our secular nation and its secular Constitution, and to brazenly lie about the very basis for our freedom as Americans (the Age of Enlightenment, not Christianity, dumbass!) is completely unforgiveable.

To attack Ken Ellison as you have, and to basically taint what should be one of the proudest moments of his life, simply because he wants to exercise his right to put his hand on the holy book of his choice for the individual, ceremonial reenactment of his taking his oath of office to serve as a Congressman, shows what a small-minded, hate-loving, shit-shoveling, low-down, sorry excuse for humanity you are.

The only mention of religion in the U.S. Constitution is in Article 6, which stipulates that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

The framers of our constitution, our founding fathers, left no doubt that the nation being created was a secular one:

“... religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprize.” --James Madison

"A man compounded of law and gospel is able to cheat a whole country with his religion and then destroy them under color of law.” --Benjamin Franklin

"Nothing is more dreaded than the national government meddling in religion." --John Adams

“Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth.” --Thomas Jefferson

You see Dennis, it works like this. I will use short words so you will know what I mean. There is no place in our government for God. But because we, as citizens, have the right to practice any religion, and we have the right to free speech, there is also no right for the government to meddle in the religious practice of an individual citizen. These are, essentially, the two clauses of the first amendment, the establishment clause, and the free exercise clause.

Dealing with the establishment clause, it has been (and is) interpreted thusly:

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the establishment of a national religion by Congress or the preference of one religion over another, or religion over nonreligion.

So Dennis, when you piss and moan about Mr. Ellison's choice of holy book for his individual swearing-in re-enactment, you only advertise your own sadly deficient understanding of our nation's founding principles.

Perhaps you should work on fixing that.

Here's a nice quote from Thomas Jefferson to start you on your way:

"[N]o man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."

And good luck to you on your journey towards enlightenment.

Disdainfully,

David Lister

The Lying Deceiver that is George F. Will

George Will's paper, the Washington Post, reported recently on an exchange between Virginia Senator-Elect Jim Webb and President Bush that took place at a recent White House reception for freshmen members of Congress. After Webb avoided the receiving line and the photo-op with the President, Bush sought him out. According to the Post, the exchange went like this (note that Webb's son, a Marine, is serving in Iraq):

Bush: How's your boy?

Webb: I'd like to get them out of Iraq, Mr. President.

Bush: That's not what I asked you. How's your boy?

Webb: That's between me and my boy, Mr. President.

In yesterday's column, George Will decided to take an editor's knife to this exchange, as reported by his paper, and turn it into something a bit less flattering for Mr. Webb and a bit more flattering for the President. According to Will's inventive mind, the conversation went as follows:

Bush: How's your Boy?

Webb: I'd like to get them (sic) out of Iraq.

Bush: How's your boy?

Webb: That's between me and my boy.

So a couple of things come to mind. George Will removed the respectful "Mr. President" from both of Webb's replies. George Will removed the antagonistic comment, "That's not what I asked you." that Bush threw at Webb.

George Will has always been Reagan puppet. Remember that he coached Reagan on his debate with Jimmy Carter, using a stolen copy of Carter's debate playbook, and then went on the air as a pundit, without disclosing his role as a professional member of Reagan's team, to claim that Reagan had won the debate.

Webb, who served as Secretary of the Navy under the Reagan Administration, is a democrat now, in no small part because of his views against the current war. So Will has clearly singled him out as a target, seeing Webb as a turncoat and all. Will's history of playing fast and loose in the honesty department meant there was no impediment to recreating the above exchange to favor Bush over Webb. So he did.

I would also point out that Webb's response to President Bush is exactly consistent with his entire campaign. He has always refused to use his son for political gain, and whenever reporters have asked him about his son, he has said, "I'm sorry, but that's between me and my son." Webb has refused to use his son's service in the Marines in campaign advertisements and literature. In this, he has been both consistent and honorable.

George Will, on the other hand, is a certifiable waste of oxygen.

Mitt Romney's on the Edge ...

With almost two solid years of presidential electioneering spread out before us like a big carpet of broken glass, it's time to visit Massachusett governor and conservative pretty boy Mitt Romney. Mitt exemplifies the political maxim--if one face in politics is good, two faces must be even better.

If you live in New England (I do) and even if you don't live in Massachusetts (I don't) it's really, really hard not to think of Mitt as the handsome, moderate, pro-choice politician who, in the wake of returning our beloved Olympic Games to their current level of purity, warmed the hearts of centrist voters--Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike--to become governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, recent breeding ground for presidential candidates such as Tank-Boy Dukakis stand-up comedian-in-training John Kerry.

But for those who live outside the confines of New England Politics, a quick read of this article in the Boston Globe will unveil the several faces of Mitt.

For example, when Mitt needed the the gay and lesbian vote, he was very, very supportive. But now, as he defines his campaign for the presidency, he's shunted those folks aside and is working tirelessly to criminalize the legal marriages of thousands of gay and lesbian couples who have taken advantage of their right (at least in Massachusetts) not to be discriminated against based on their sexual preferences.

I could almost (not quite) ignore Mitt's position on this one if he wasn't a Mormon. You know Mormons, don't you? They're the folks who believe black people are the product of god's retribution against the sins of their ancestors.

Yep. They basically picked the most reprehensible of the 10 commandments, the one where the sins of the fathers (unfairly) result in the punishment of innocent, subsequent generations, and they made it a cornerstone of their 19th century racism.

According to their faith, it only took God until 1978 to let their reigning prophet (Stewart W. Kimball) know that it was now okay to allow the offspring of Cain (black people) into the Temple. Of course, more fundamental offshoots of the Mormon faith still don't believe it.

Lots of luck with that "running for President" thing, Mitt.

Little Ado About Lott

Those Republicans, bless their little learning-disabled hearts, have finally allowed Trent Lott in from the cold. After being sentenced to a mere four years in the weeds for his ill-conceived remarks supporting the good old days of segregation (remarks made during Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday party), the Republicans have resurrected Trent in full, putting him second in command behind Mitch McConnell. Trent apparently beat out Lamar Alexander by a single vote.

Trent blames losing his position as Senate Majority Leader in December of 2002 on Bill Frist, President Bush, and unnamed members of the Bush administration. Were he a man of principles, he would understand that he died at his own hand. At the time he was ousted, it was rumored that Republicans were happy to see him go, in large part because of his single-minded pursuit of impeachment for President Clinton, combined with his perceived incompetence at getting the Senate to ultimately convict the President.

Trent began his career as a pro-segregationist Democrat, but quickly became a Republican once the Democrats embraced the civil rights movement. After serving as an administrative assistant to one of the leading segregationists in the House, Democrat William Colmer, Lott became a Republican and ran for the seat Colmer vacated when he retired. Colmer endorsed Lott as his successor, even though Lott ran as a Republican.

As a member of the House, Lott voted against the renewal of the Voting Rights Act and he opposed the Martin Luther King Holiday. He maintained his affiliation with the Council of Conservative Citizens, an organization that the NAACP and the Southern Poverty Law Center both list as a hate group.

Given the overwhelming failure in the 2006 elections of the Republican "Black Like Me" strategy (supporting African American Candidates running in open House and Senate races based on perceived attractiveness to minority voters), it's no surprise that Trent Lott would find himself back in the saddle again.

Where's Your God Now, Moses?

I can't take credit for the title of this post. I was bouncing around the internet during the past week and came across a follow-up posting to a news article (I cannot seem to locate it now) where the writer, mentioning that President Bush has often been referred to as the "Pastor-in-Chief," noted that it reminded him of the line delivered in the 1956 biblical epic, The Ten Commandments, where Edwin G. Robinson, in his wonderfully biblical accent, intones to Charlton Heston, "Where's your god now, Moses?"

But enough post-election gloating. I see some storms a-brewin'.

It's been a week since the off-year elections, and the dust has settled. It's clear now that the Democrats will hold a clear majority in the House of Representatives, as well as the slimmest of majorities in the Senate. That's assuming Joe Lieberman doesn't jump ship. As The Boston Globe reports today, on Sunday's Meet the Press Lieberman refused to rule out switching to the Republican party. Since he always said he was running as an "Independent Democrat," we'll see how well he'll be able to resist selling out to the highest bidder. Because as Joe said, "I am going to Washington beholden to no political group except the people of Connecticut and, of course, my conscience."

We may just learn how flexible one man's conscience can be.

Let the bidding begin.

As Bad as it Gets

I listened to President Bush's press conference on Friday. A transcript and link to the video can be found here. It has become clear that Bush is precisely the kind of president our founding fathers had in mind when they designed the three branches of our federal government to have checks and balances to make certain that no one could steal our country away from the people.

For the most part, Bush spent the press conference evaded an actual answer to this question: "What do you say to the argument that your proposal is basically seeking support for torture, coerced evidence and secret hearings?"

Rather than answering, he went on an on about the ambiguity of Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, and the need to clear it up with U.S. law. Eventually, this prompted the following exchange:

Q . Mr. President, critics of your proposed bill on interrogation rules say there's another important test -- these critics include John McCain, who you've mentioned several times this morning -- and that test is this: If a CIA officer, paramilitary or special operations soldier from the United States were captured in Iran or North Korea, and they were roughed up, and those governments said, well, they were interrogated in accordance with our interpretation of the Geneva Conventions, and then they were put on trial and they were convicted based on secret evidence that they were not able to see, how would you react to that, as Commander-in-Chief?

Bush: David, my reaction is, is that if the nations such as those you named, adopted the standards within the Detainee Detention Act, the world would be better. That's my reaction. We're trying to clarify law. We're trying to set high standards, not ambiguous standards.

As anyone can see, Bush either did not understand the question, or did not have an answer. Given that the reporter's question is at the absolute heart of whether or not we should codify into law the Bush Administration's rather overbroad view of the various kinds of torture that shouldn't actually be viewed as torture, it is astonishing that Bush had no valid response.

Some other nuggets from Friday's press conference:

Bush: "We didn't ask for this war."

I guess I missed the part where the Iraq asked for this war. Let's see, the Kurds had control of the north, we had both a southern and northern no-fly zone operating successfully (at far less cost than our current efforts), Saddam was basically the Mayor of Baghdad, the UN had inspectors on the ground doing relatively unimpeaded work (finally), and the UN also urged us not to go to war, and most of our allies from the first Gulf War had little or no interest in helping us destroy the country of Iraq. I'm leaning towards believing that Bush did in fact ask for this war. Afterall, he did request authority from Congress to go to war. Remember the vote? Hint: it's the one where Kerry said (and I'm probably paraphrasing), "... I voted against it before I voted for it." So the Bush administration did in fact ask for this war.

Next of course, he tells us we're going to be attacked again: "I wish I could tell the American people, don't worry about it, they're not coming again. But they are coming again." Well of course he would tell us that. Afterall, mid-term elections are less than two months away, and there's nothing like fear-mongering to collect votes. Of course, now that the number of U.S. and coalition dead in Iraq and Afghanistan exceed the number of dead from the September 11 attacks, it's obvious where the real danger lies. It lies in the hands of a war-mongering presidency. Look, the government has done virtually nothing to secure our ports, our borders, our public transit, or much of anything else. As far as I can tell, the only thing they've done is to make damn sure that every pair of shoes boarding an airplane isn't made of plastic explosives. The Department of Homeland Security has doled out huge sums of money to make our country more secure, but instead of sending most of the money to places where future attacks are most likely, the entire program has become a poster child for the effectiveness of pork barrel politics. For example, look what Seattle just received: a $549,000 boat to cruise around Lake Washington and rescue pleasure boaters from their own mistakes. From the article linked above on the Seattle Times website: " ... (Sherrif Sue) Rahr said, with the full cost of the vessel paid through regional federal Homeland Security funds. We didn't have to pay a dime."

I Could Eat a Horse ... But Not Anymore!

Flicka. Mr. Ed. Secretariat. Donald Rumsfeld.

Okay, the first three are famous horses; the last a horse's ass. But I cannot believe that the democrats in the less-educated House of Representatives let me down and voted overwhelmingly to shut down slaughterhouses in the United States (all three of them) that slaughter horses for food. Sure, people ride 'em. Some girls even seem a bit over-attached to them. And I ain't going there.

I'll admit that I have a selfish reason for not wanting to eliminate the slaughter of horses in the United States--horse flesh tastes great! I never pass up a chance to eat horse when I visit my wife's family in Italy--hell, I'm already pissed I can't order it in restaurants here.

Why is Congress wasting time with silly issues like this? If they really cared about livestock, perhaps they'd pass some legislation that made the slaughter of cattle, sheep, and hogs a little more humane, rather than turning a blind eye to what's already going on in America's slaughterhouses.

The vote on this bill was relatively close among the republicans in the House, but the democrats went bonkers for it. Perhaps it was all the movie stars glad-handing House members prior to the vote. While it's nice to see that Willie Nelson and Bo Derek wish to protect their four-footed buddies, I'd just like to note that the American Veterinary Medical Association, the American Association of Equine Practitioners and the American Quarter Horse Association all opposed the bill.

And here's today's nominee for the dumbest thing I've heard a member of Congress utter in the past week. It came from a democrat this time. Referring to horses, and ignoring 150 years of evolutionary biology, South Carolinian democratic Representative John Spratt said "they're as close to human as any animal you can get."

What a dumbass. The taste is completely different.

This Week Inside the Beltway

On the off chance that some branch of the federal judiciary might find unconstitutional the reciting in public schools of a pledge that includes the words "under god" in a country who's constitutions makes no mention of god whatsoever and contains an amendment ensuring freedom from religion, The House of Representatives passed HR 2389, which says in part:

"... no court created by Act of Congress shall have any jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court shall have no appellate jurisdiction, to hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpretation of, or the validity under the Constitution of, the Pledge of Allegiance, as defined in section 4 of title 4, or its recitation."

Well isn't that nice. The patients running the asylum have decided, in their infinite lack of wisdom, to start carving up the U.S. Constitution, bit by bloody bit. It would be nice to blame the Republicans (221 Ayes, 8 Noes) entirely for this attempted rape of our founding legal document, but the Democrats bear a bit of the responsibility, as they certainly added to the insanity (39 Ayes, 158 Noes). The lone independent, Vermont Congressman Bernie Sanders, voted against the measure.

This whole pledge of allegiance has been one giant SNAFU since it began, and with each modification, it gets worse:

1. 1892 to 1923: "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands: one Nation indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all."
(As written by Baptist minister Francis Bellamy--a socialist, by the way--on September 7, 1892.)

2. 1923 to 1954: "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all."
(Defining exactly which flag was the subject of our pledge our allegiance was made because we wanted to make absolutely sure that newly arriving immigrants understood which flag it was. In other words, fear drove the change.)

3. 1954 to Present: "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all."
(At the urging of the Catholic organization The Knights of Columbus, Congress added in the words "under God" because we were in the middle of a cold war with those godless communists.)

Note that as poetry, it became progressively worse with each change. Note how iteration 2 maintains a poetic meter completely missing in iteration 3, which sounds positively clunky by comparison. If you grew up reciting iteration 3, at first iteration 2 will sound awkward, but just listen for the rhythm.

Note also how with each change, the pledge becomes less inclusive. First we'll deal with those pesky immigrants, many of them economic refugees from other countries. Next, we'll give a figurative "bitch slap" to the nonbelievers among us. It's amazing how we institutionalize intolerance. As an aside, the author, Minister Bellamy, chose not to mention god for precisely the same reasons given by those who, like myself, argue against the appropriateness of those two words today.

One of the truly unfortunate side effects of electing so many lawyers to the U.S. Congress is that we Americans end up being represented by people who are well versed at twisting law well beyond any reasonable interpretation, have no qualms acting completely without morality, and are conditioned to not give creedence to opposing viewpoints. Letting lawyers make laws is a dangerous, dangerous thing.

By the way, if this actually becomes law and passes constitutional muster (highly unlikely, and really, really highly unlikely), then at some future point, if, for example, the Congress is overun with atheists and they are able to pass a law changing "under god" to read "godless and free from superstition" then this law will prohibit the federal judiciary from having jurisdiction on the matter. And that, my friends, is the perfect example why HR bill 2389 is excrement, pure and simple.

... And They Ran Like Rats

Down in Georgia, after years of providing behind the scenes support--monetary and otherwise--to the Republican machine, Ralph Reed, the most popular screwball religious nutbag of his generation, stood helpless as one by one the cogs in that machine turned their backs and ran like rats, causing donations to Ralph's campaign for Georgia Lieutenant Governor to dry up faster than Ralph's skin would on the day after his makeup purse goes missing.

Quite a few republicans seemed to have some sort of issue with Ralph--something about Ralph being completely against casino gambling based on his religious beliefs on the one hand, while on the other, Ralphy was happily squirreling away proceeds from Indian gambling casinos that had been paid to Jack Abramoff (by tribes who already had casinos) to finance Abramoff's lobbying efforts (on their behalf) to block the building of a casino by a competing tribe. Hmm, what would Jesus do?

For my money, Ralph's rapid ride to the bottom began when he lost a battle of wits with a sock puppet, something the mainstream media is careful to ignore. Conspiracy theory, anyone?

Where's the Joe-mentum?

Polls published today indicate that Connecticut semi-Republican Senator Joe Lieberman is trailing his democratic challenger. A Quinnipiac University poll has Ned Lamont ahead by a tally of 51-47 percent among likely voters in the Aug. 8 Democratic primary, a huge swing from a similar poll in June that had Lieberman trouncing Lamont 55-40. Does Ned Lamont, the challenger, have Lieberman by the Joe-gular? (Pun apologized for.)

And it looks like Lieberman is enlisting the aid of a man he criticized, not so long ago, for "disgraceful behavor." Former President Clinton is scheduled to be stumping with Joe come Monday.

I'm not a big Joe fan. If you talk like a republican, if you walk like a republican, if you vote like a republican, and if you're President Bush's hug-buddy (acknowledging Joe's statement that it was only a hug, and not a kiss), then you're a republican, regardless of which primary you choose to run in. Win or lose (and I'm hoping for the latter), I'm just glad Joe has a democratic candidate out there working to send him into early Joe-tirement.

Time Again to Penalize the Living

I just noticed that that George W. Bush, the photo-op stand-in for President Cheney, has followed through on his threat to veto the stem-cell research bill that landed on his desk. Thank goodness we have an administration willing to go to the ends of the earth to protect the sanctity of life as represented by an all-but-discarded frozen embryo fast on it's way to being tossed out as medical waste. I'm sure millions of Americans will be sleeping easier knowing that the administration is hell bent to give a cluster of cells the full rights of citizenship while at the same time they whittle away relentlessly on the rights of the living.

Riddle for the Administration: You run into the front door of a burning medical laboratory. Fifty feet to your left, sitting on the floor crying, is an eight-month old infant. Fifty feet to your right, a freezer containing 20 frozen embryos. You have time to rescue the infant, or the embryos, but not both. What do you do?

If we as a society are happy to embrace technologies like in vitro fertilization in order to allow people to become parents who otherwise would not have this chance, is it not our duty to use well the discarded byproducts of these kind of processes? Is it not our moral imperative to make sure that unused embryos do not literally go to waste? In this, I am in full agreement with Republican Senators Orrin Hatch and Bill Frist, as well as Nancy Reagan, which is not something that happens all that often for me.

When Just Waving It Isn't Enough

This week our hallowed upper house of Congress, the Senate, found time to put aside our country's more pressing matters in order to debate and vote on a constitutional amendment banning desecration of our flag. This amendment, in one form or another, is passed regularly by our (collectively) younger and dumber members of the House, but the amendment has, up until now, always stumbled in the chambers of the Senate. Thankfully it failed again. I think this time Senator Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, decorated World War II veteran, said it best:

"While I take offense at disrespect to the flag, I nonetheless believe it is my continued duty as a veteran, as an American citizen, and as a United States senator to defend the constitutional right of protesters to use the flag in nonviolent speech."

Three Republican senators voted against the amendment, including Senate Majority Whip Mitch O'Connell, who also apparently has the intellectual capacity to understand our first amendment:

"Our Founding Fathers wrote the first amendment because they believed that, even with all the excesses and offenses that freedom of speech would undoubtedly allow, truth and reason would triumph in the end"

The other Republican senators voting against the bill were Robert Bennet (Utah) and Lincoln Chafee (Rhode Island).

The Christian Science Monitor explains why the vote was not as close as it seems. Essentially, the votes were managed among the Democrats to avoid, as best as possible, repercussions for those senators up for reelection in 2006.

I cannot understand why average Americans fail to grasp this issue, which easily boils down to a single sentence:

Only so long as we have the right to burn our flag, is our flag worthy of not being burned.

Think about it.

Curious about how your senators voted? Find the vote tally here. As you can tell by the roll call of the vote, the senators from my home state of New Hampshire, Republicans Judd Gregg and John Sununu, have apparently misplaced whatever clue they may have once possessed.