3/11/2005:   Vicente Fox, the President of Mexico, stood by a document that the Mexican government is handing out to its citizens which details how to elude U.S. border and customs control officers and enter the United States illegally.

Vicente Fox had been pressuring the Monkey Faced Frat Boy to legitimize the status of the some ten million illegal aliens who are in the United States, but 9/11 stopped that effort. This forced Vicente to take a more direct approach.

Vicente Fox opened discussions with our Social Security Administration to allow Mexicans to receive U.S. Social Security benefits. One plan is to allow Mexicans, who were not employed in the U.S. long enough to collect U.S. Social Security benefits, to count the time they worked in Mexico as part of their mandatory 10 years or 40 quarters. (Keep in mind, the income collected in Mexico was not taxed by the U.S. to pay for the Soc.Sec. program or our infrastructure.

The more expensive plan is to provide benefits to the estimated 5 million Mexicans who are working illegally in the United States after having supplied fake Social Security numbers to their employers. "Our actuaries are working on the numbers," said Social Security spokesman Jim Courtney. Already there is talk of an addition to the U.S. Embassy in Mexico City to handle 37,000 claims anticipated in the first year.

That's right: a U.S. Social Security office would open in Mexico city to provide benefits (read "money") to Mexican citizens, paid out of our Social Security program that is supposedly, if you listen to Bush's lies, in "crisis".

The Bush Administration claims that these plans would promote "totalization" of U.S. and Mexican retirement systems and develop a positive relationship between the two countries.

Let me give you a little tip, Sparky, our countries are relating just fine, thank you very frikkin' much, and making up a word like "totalization" doesn't fool those that use their brains for something other than shoulder ballast. Georgie wants to give your retirement funds to people that didn't pay into the system. He wants to give retirement funds to people who were here illegally. He wants to sell your retirement for a chance to do business with Mexico.

And why is Vicente Fox doing all this? Money. He wants illegals over here as much as possible because they are amazing cash cows. Think about it: they can't get their families over here because they're here illegally, so where do these bread winners send their money? Back to Mexico! Who needs to shore up an economy when the citizens are pumping money into it from other countries as fast as they can? Mexico will be flush with U.S. cash because it keeps flowing from illegal migrant worker's under-the-table untaxed paychecks to Mexican families that then spend the money in Mexico on Mexican goods.

And it gets better. More and more states are being pressured to allow illegal aliens to receive out-of-state tuition at public colleges and universities, medical care paid for out of state coffers, social assistance money and programs, etc.

I've got an idea: if you want to come to this country, come in legally. Period. Elect me President and I'll put the frikkin' National Guard on the border and seal that puppy shut like a 1000 mile long ZipLock baggie. ZipLock Border: Keeps the illegals out!

Do I mind Mexican people coming in to the U.S.? Heck no! Dude, my wife is half Mexican and I love the Mexican side of her family as much as the non-Mexican side, so I obviously don't have a problem with Mexicans. But come in legally, get a Social Security card, pay into the system when you work here. Do it right or stay out. Period.

3/9/2005:   I love Walter Cronkite. When he retired, it was like losing a family member. He was like a TV-bound grandfather. So listening to him snipe Dan Rather was a bit unsettling. I've watched Dan Rather intermittently throughout his entire news anchor career. I've admired his style and respected his reporting during that entire time. He comes across as intelligent and forthcoming, interested in the truth and with little patience for prevarication, equivocation, and propoganda. It's a shame that he let his emotions regarding George Bush distract him from doing the kind of quality job he's come to be known for, but I don't see any reason to discard 24 years of excellence for one stumble.

As Tim Goodman, a journalist for the San Fran Chronicle put it, he was, "a man complicit in a story that may have been inaccurate but not entirely wrong."

Dan, thank you so much for a job well done. I'll miss you on the CBS news, and I'll enjoy still being able to catch you on 60 minutes. Good luck.

3/9/2005:   Congress is about to pass legislation making it much tougher to file bankruptcy. The bill would set up a new test for measuring a debtor's ability to pay. Those with insufficient assets or income could still file a Chapter 7 bankruptcy, which if approved by a judge erases debts entirely after certain assets are forfeited. But those with income above the state's median income who can pay at least $6,000 over five years -- $100 a month -- would be forced into Chapter 13, where a judge would then order a repayment plan.

I'm actually ok with that part. Bankruptcy has gone from being a safety net to a "Get Out Of Debt Free" card for people with no character and no intention of paying for all the stuff they make off with. It's not a second chance anymore, it's a financial strategy.

Now, I know people who have used they're credit cards to stay afloat, only to find that their ship didn't get to them in time. Under a debt load that would test someone with a six figure income, they see stretching before them a debt payment schedule that will last them a lifetime and leave them with no means to enjoy the life they so dearly are holding on to. What I'm saying is, the original intention of bankruptcy is noble and necessary. It ain't fun, but it's necessary.

The problem is, the new law doesn't take into account the fact that many people who file for bankruptcy have lost their jobs, or are going to lose them, and then their ability to pay even the $100 a month and still be able to afford a poverty level living will disappear with it.

According to current law, a bankruptcy judge determines under which chapter of the bankruptcy code a person falls -- whether they have to repay some or all of their debt. That decision making process has been eliminated in favor of a scale that doesn't take into account why the person is filing. A recent death in the family? Sickness? Disability? Adding new dependents, perhaps with special needs? Huge medical bills? Court judgements? Business failure? Lost job? The bread winner sucked into the war in Iraq? Natural disaster? Town nuked when China retaliated for U.S.'s Taiwan stance? (Oh, sorry, that hasn't happened yet...)

A recent Harvard University study found that costly illnesses led to about half of all personal bankruptcies. This law doesn't allow for recent disability. It simply takes into account your income for the last year and uses a scale to determine which chapter you file under and how much you have to pay back. The humanity has been taken out of the law. The judge can no longer take the filer's personal circumstances into account.

Y'know, I've come to the conclusion that, to be a Republican, you have to be OK with people starving on the street. There is no such thing as the social contract, except as it serves those who can afford to rise above the putrid mass of the low-income herd. Elitism is the code of the Republican, the social food chain is the crest.

3/9/2005:   Chris Rock was so terribly out of his league at the Oscars. Who was the idiot that thought this would be a good idea? Next let's have 50 cent hand out Nobel Peace Prizes, or have Pamela Turner give out badges at the next Boy Scout Jamboree, or have O. J. Simpson give crisis counseling to battered women. Yeah, that makes sense, right?

A benchmark of this moron's class can be found in his statement, "You won't be able to take your eyes off these next FOUR presenters...," in reference to Selma Hyek and Penelope Cruz. Having trouble seeing the problem? Think about it for a moment. Still having trouble? Ok, hold the image of two beautiful ladies in evening gowns in your mind, and then pretend you're at a college toga party listening to a thoroughly stewed frat brother attempt to do stand-up comedy on the karaoke machine. Ah! I can see the light go on inside your head, and the disgust turn your smile into an insulted frown.

Chris needs to be slapped. By a 250 lbs. man. With a brick. Let's hope that, instead of such a righteous recalibration of his mental functions, that the folks that organize the Oscars get a better host instead. What was wrong with Billy Crystal? Geez, he was great!

And then there's the Razzies. I finally found a copy of Halle Berry's acceptance speech of a Razzie for "Catwoman". Man, that was class. She got up there and accepted her Razzie with the finest of good humor and grace. I believe she's the first big name actor to actually show up and take possession of her Razzie. She's just amazing. Her movies are pretty dang amazing too. On the other hand, "Catwoman", while certainly eye candy for randy, red-blooded American boys like myself, had a truly weak script and the special effects didn't quite make the grade. The casting was exceptional though -- with Sharon Stone as the medically enhanced aging supermodel gone bad. Sharon's acting stunk, but her face was perfect for the part.

3/7/2005:   "At this point I think George Bush could declare Christmas illegal, and his fan club would figure out a way to make it sound like a cunning and farsighted strategy for the future of America."
    -- Kevin Drum

3/7/2005:   Republican Senator Chuck Hagel is a moron. He is proposing to raise the Social Security retirement age from 67 to 68, privatize Social Security, and borrow money to make it all happen. He's Bush, but worse: he also wants to withhold benefits from people for an additional year.

Actually, I can see the logic of raising the age -- we live longer now, and have much longer to draw against the Soc. Sec. system once we do retire, so raising the bar makes sense.

But borrowing to privatize Soc.Sec. is like running over kids in a crosswalk cause you're in a hurry to embezzle the church charity fund.

Ok, let's review, shall we?

The more you owe, the bigger the interest payments. For every dollar you bring in, a bigger and bigger percentage of it goes to paying off your debt, or at least making the minimum payments so you don't default on your debts. As we all know, defaulting is a Bad Thing (let's not get started on using bankruptcy as a financial tool -- we're talking about a nation here). So the bigger your debt load, the less money you have left after making your minimum payments for programs like schools, Social Security, schools, the environment, schools, roads, communications, schools, social programs, schools, and... .... hmmm... oh yeah, schools.

(I keep mentioning schools only because they're always the first to suffer cuts.)

My point is, you should ask yourself who benefits by taking your retirement funds and playing them on black on the roulette table. It's not you and me. It's the Monkey Faced Frat Boy and his corporate finance "base". Robbing the many to give to the few is the legacy that Bush will leave us, but he won't be crying, because it's too hard to count your money when there're tears in your eyes....

3/7/2005:   I see the occasional car with the "Bush Cheney '04" and "W 04", and I wonder if these people have realized how badly they've screwed over their kids and grandkids by voting for Bush. I wonder if they're ashamed of themselves. I wonder if they've figure it out yet.

Wait... they're Republicans.... Nah, probably not....

3/7/2005:   Rudy Bahktiar is the best looking individual, bar none, on any news program on any media. She's articulate, intelligent, and just happens, coincidentally, to be a stone babe. And she makes any Arabic name or word sound like terms of endearment. If you'd told me that someone would be able to say the name "Saddam Hussein" in a way that would leave me weak in the knees, I'd have given you a knuckle sandwich. Who'd a thunk? Love the longer hair, by the way. I'll tell ya what, any news program she's on, I become an instant and faithful viewer. Yowza.

3/7/2005:   John Kerry. Please don't. You couldn't put down an SOB with all his warts and lies apparent for all to see. Ted Kennedy's endorsement notwithstanding, If you can't win a kicking contest against a man with no legs, you shouldn't have entered.

Bill Frist? He is not electable, in spite of a great record in Congress. He's just too "90's Democrat" to win in 2008. We need a fresh, semi-conservative, religiously respectful, freedom loving Democrat with a penchant for putting Bush in his place like the monkey boy he is. Bill Frist has fire, but his position and record aren't what we need right now.

Jeb Bush? HAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!! Whew... hehe... yeah right....

John Edwards. Geez, I hope not. I liked him ok, but he was part of the losing team of 2004, and I mean LOSING, as in LOSERS, as in a big fat capital "L" burned into his political forehead for all time. Sorry, John, but Congress should be the pinnacle of your career. On the other hand, I'd love to be wrong in this case...

Hillary. Can Hillary top Bill? Heck no. Could she be a good President? Oh, you betcha. And putting a woman on the card may be the best thing not only for the Democratic Party, but for America and the world.