5/18/2005:   A local columnist by the name of Dave Campbell wrote an article the other day about his attempts to call in to the Armstrong and Getty radio show after wondering why there were no opposing viewpoints to the talk show hosts' statements concerning the lives lost in connection with the Newsweek Guantanamo Bay Koran-flushing article, a show in which Rice was quoted taking Newsweek to task for irresponsible actions. He told the screener that he wanted to ask what the difference was between a war based on lies in which 1600 servicemen were killed and an article that religious freaks went bonkers about, killing 16 people.

Screener: "I don't think so." Click.

Ah! So that's how it works! The screener doesn't attempt to prevent nut cases from getting on. See, that's what I thought their purpose was -- to make sure that level headed debate was conducted while keeping hysterical and/or off-topic and/or profane callers off the air. But I was WRONG! They're there to make sure that the only callers that get through are glad-handing, rah-rah-ing, and yessing the hosts.

Well.

There ya go.

Armstrong and Getty are no more reliable a source of information and public opinion than Rush or Savage or Coulter or ... Newsweek.

Thanks, Dave, for straightening that out. Keep up the good work!

5/18/2005:   "It is the worst pile of crap architecture I have ever seen in my life."

So declared the billionaire real estate master Donald Trump. I'm glad someone had the guts to finally say it -- the "Freedom Tower" design is an artsy-fartsy piece of junk. If you want to put something up that has American heart, put the towers back up, but bigger and better than before. Donald wants to make them 100 feet taller, with one more story than it had before. The design and construction would take future terrorist attacks into account. It would show the world that we have the ability and will to not only create something that's the best in the world once, but raise it back up better and stronger than before from the ashes of the fruit of evil intent, in your face and full of pride. Hoowah!!!

Now, to balance this out with the will of the people that came out and put in so much effort to create a lasting memorial to those that died, it should include the museums, the performing art center, the public open space, and the transportation hub that architect Libeskind designed into the "Freedom Tower" project. But please, oh please, get rid of those butt ugly buildings. What fruitcake thought it was a good idea to turn a key part of the New York skyline into post-sapient, my-wallet-is-too-full-must-spend-money-on-crap modern art? Origami and faux textures are great for paper, not for steel. And these buildings need to look like they are made of the hardest steel, not pretty little crystals, toothpicks, and crumpled paper. My fifth grader could do a better job (she's pretty stinkin' talented, though, so I'm not sure it would be a fair contest).

Donald's plan is simple, beautiful, and hard-rock American. You gotta love it. Governor Pataki, I know you respect and admire Donald Trump for the fantastic work he's done, his intellect, and his business acumen. Now show us that you can see his patriotism, too. Put Trump and Libeskind in a room and make them compromise. Libeskind needs to be taught how to put some spine in his designs, how to use this opportunity to slap down the efforts of a handful of evil animals. It's not enough to shed a tear for the 2000 that died in the towers. We must also jut out our chins, throw out our chests, and proclaim, "Is that the best you've got? A sissy punch when I wasn't looking? Is that it? Cause that was NOTHING."

Donald, you da man. Now about that apprentice thing -- you put me on that show and I will spank every other contestant. Have your people call my people, we'll golf.

5/15/2005:   Rep. Robert Wexler of Florida will introduce a bill Monday that would partially remove the cap on Social Security taxes. It would levy a 3% tax on income over $90,000.

Right now, the tax is 6.2% on income up to $90,000 and zero after that. In other words, a systems architect making $90,000 would pay $5,580 per year. Bill Gates, on his most profitable year would also pay $5,580. Doesn't seem fair does it?

Right now Bush is trying to prevent the removal of the cap by pushing through privatization of Social Security accounts. In other words, before someone stands up and does the right thing, he's going to protect his millions by shoving some cash in each person's hand and saying, "Look, here's your money, just go away, ok?" Rather than fix the safety net, he's cutting it down completely. The problem for rich legislators who were salivating over the prospect of ripping down the net, profiting from a sudden influx of cash into investment accounts, and keeping their millions, is that Bush's plan isn't working.

So Mr. Wexler has decided to take the next fallback position and at the same time grab a little glory for himself. He's proposing that the uber-rich pay 3% into the system on income over $90,000. In effect, he'll shore up Soc.Sec. for quite some time, and save himself 3.2% in taxes on his income. Nice job. Gaining political currency and saving the rich in the country hundreds of millions in hard currency in one fell swoop. He'll be popular on both sides of that debate.

If I was Bush, I'd jump on it. If I was the Democrats, I'd start fighting for the other 3.2%. In the end, the efforts of the Democrats will scare the President and the Republicans into grudgingly accepting the 3% hike. The Democrats will appear to have gotten only half their cake and the Republicans will appear to have been "reasonable."

It won't be fair, but at least Soc.Sec. will be solvent for 40 additional years. If you want to *really* fix Social Security, remove the cap entirely. Heck, you could make it 5% across the board with no cap and no decrease in benefits and you'd still see a huge increase in Soc.Sec.s solvency.

5/15/2005:   President Vicente Fox refused to apologize Monday for saying Mexicans in the United States do the work that blacks won't.

Wow. What a jackass.

This is the same guy that had brochures printed up and distributed giving instructions on how to cross the Mexican-U.S. border, avoid customs and border patrols, make contact with other illegal immigrants, find work, etc., and acknowledging that the illegal immigrants will send the money back home to their families, thus syphoning off money from our economy to shore up Vicente Fox's failed economic programs.

Now he's saying that blacks would still be doing agricultural work if Mexicans weren't doing it cheaper. Rev. Al Sharpton pointed out that Fox was educated in the United States and "he is not unaware of the racial sensitivities here." In other words, this isn't a language mix up, a la Schwarzengroper. According to many reports on this story, racism is a generally accepted aspect of Mexican life and culture, but Fox knows better than to spout that bile and then expect the folks in the U.S. to be okay with it.

This guy has no respect for anyone. He's Bush with even beadier eyes and a bad moustache. So long as he's saying what his people want to hear, right or wrong, he's happy.

The Mexican government is expected to send a diplomatic letter to the United States tomorrow (Monday) protesting recent measures to ensure that driver's license applicants are in the country legally, making it harder for migrants to gain amnesty, and for building a barrier along the California border with Mexico.

All of which I firmly support.

Look, you want to come over here and live, work, etc.? GREAT! I'm glad you picked the U.S. as the country in which to live out your dreams. Now head down to your closest customs agency, fill out the proper forms, send them in, and be patient while we perform the necessary background checks to make sure you're NOT A FRIKKIN' TERRORIST!!

People talk about how the world changed after 9/11, but there are some that expect the U.S. to just stupidly leave the door open to the next wave of terrorists. And that's crap. If I, a decently dressed, sober, average, middle American, can't get into a Metallica concert in Reno, Nevada without being frisked and scanned with a metal detecting wand, then there should be SOMETHING at the border that prevents known terrorists from coming into the country and blowing up major buildings.

Sorry for the wait in processing your application to come into our country, but we've lost some of our tolerance for suicidal religious freaks. Is that so hard to understand?

5/15/2005:   Newsweek printed a story by an unnamed official in the U.S. government that investigators at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba had defiled the Quran, even flushing one book down the toilet.

The Muslim world erupted. All their worst fears of the U.S. combined with this story to fuel massive demonstrations and the deaths of at least 15 people.

Then Newsweek, upon backing up the story, found that its source lacked the conviction of his words. To mix metaphors, the source crawled back under his rock and left Newsweek staff holding the biggest, blackest bag in history. Now they're trying to rein in the horror that was irresponsibly unleashed. See, Muslims in many parts of the world still believe that a man's life is worth less than a printed copy of a book insofar as they hold the defiling of the Quran as a crime punishable by death. Many Muslim leaders have been waiting for this exact sort of story, ultimately true or not, to fire up their followers and gain the kind of political currency that Bush gets by starting wars and legitimizing homophobia. And Newsweek ran this stupid, trivial tripe, resulting in death, destruction, and the revocation of some amount of their credibility.

They've "Rathered" themselves.

Which is a shame. Newsweek is usually better than this. Usually they run a pretty decent operation. But now, through this mistake, they've made themselves look little better than the "Us" magazine of world events.

On the flip side, this just makes fundamentalist Muslims seem that much crazier. Killing people over an unsubstantiated story about someone mistreating a book, a lump of wood pulp for crying out loud. God, I'm glad I live in the U.S. of A.

5/11/2005:   About a week ago, a radio talk show host (who shall remain nameless because he's been kind of rude in the past I wouldn't want to reward that sort of behaviour) made a lot hay out of memo that was going around the U.K. press that made it clear that the data on Iraq was "fixed" to make a better case. I was completely unsurprised by this since, really, the fact that Bush rigged the war is old news, but this report is another straw, and hopefully the one that breaks the camel's back. CNN is airing a story on its web site about the memo and the subsequent request by 89 Democratic members of Congress, led by Representative John Conyers -- the same one that demanded an investigation into voting improprieties in the 2004 election -- that the Bush administration explain itself.

See, GeeDub knew, as was stated in the memo, that "the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran." So he had the data reworked, mined, adjusted, and in some cases outright fabricated, so that he could present a better case. He had no intention, ever, of waiting for the U.N. to authorize action, no willingness to allow weapons inspectors back into Iraq (they would just refute his case), no exit plan, no timeline, just a determination to invade and overthrow the regime.

I've heard people come right out and say, "Who cares what his motives were? Saddam was a bad man and the world is a safer place without him!" But this memo proves, again, that in fact Saddam did not pose a threat, that his removal did not improve the state of the world. Once again, I stand by my assertion that the world will be a safer place ONLY when Bush and every remnant of his administration and policies have been removed. To secure our safety, the borders must be closed to illegal immigration, all non-citizens must be closely monitored, and countries like North Korea, Syria, Pakistan, and Iran must be scrutinized, monitored, guarded against, and pressure must be applied to them to end terrorist activities on a state level as well as support of independent terrorist groups.

Bush lied to you. This memo is not the first proof of that, only the latest. And I am not OK with being lied to by my President so that he can wage a war.

5/10/2005:   The first Journalist Corruption Award goes to Rupert Murdoch for turning Fox News into his own personal vendetta machine. He controls the reporting on this program, its content, its direction, its spin, its flavor, and its presentation in order to maximize the negative impact on all who would oppose George W. Bush and his administration. During the 2005 election, Fox News was at full throttle slinging mud at John Kerry while effusively praising every grunt and bodily function of GeeDub "Monkey Faced Frat Boy" Bush.

Don't like what you're hearing? Are you a Fox News vidiot? Then check out "Out Foxed" and learn how a media mogul can subvert this nation's news outlets to carry his propoganda. Rupert Murdoch should be brought up on charges of some kind, but unfortunately, between his deep pockets and the lack of effectively applicable legislation, he will continue to destroy this country from within its living rooms until the plight of journalism becomes a focal point in the minds of the American people. When we start using our buying power and voting power to put pressure on Murdoch and our elected representatives, then we can start trusting our news agencies again.

5/10/2005:   The second Journalist Corruption Award goes to Sinclair Broadcasting and Mark Hyman, their VP, for the periodic snippet entitled "The Point." Mark takes it upon himself to abuse the Democratic Party while painting Bush in the rosiest of hues, regardless of the issue, and Sinclair's affiliates are forced to run this piece without counterpoint.

This isn't journalism or even editorialization. It's propoganda. It's abusing the television medium to further a political agenda under the guise of news or balanced opinion. It's an abuse of power and opportunity. It's a corruption of an informative medium. It's evil, and Sinclair Broadcasting's sponsors should be boycotted at every opportunity until it stops.

5/9/2005:   I'm not a big fan of Bush's Social Security plan. While having control of my investments sounds nice, Social Security is not a retirement plan. It's a safety net. Bush is repainting it as something akin to a failed 401k plan, and that was not the original intention.

If anyone really wants to fix the problem, all they have to do is eliminate the cap. See, under current rules, you only pay Soc. Sec. tax on your income up to $90,000. That's right, rich folks don't pay in nearly as much as poor folks. If you make $90,000, you'll pay in $5,580 per year. If you make $10 million dollars, you'll pay in roughly.... $5,580 per year. Anyone see a problem with this?

One of the backup plans Bush is considering is to lower the benefit payment on a sliding scale. So if you are poor, you'll make a little more than you currently do, if you're middle class, you'll get the same amount, and if you're rich, you won't get much of anything. This is cute, but ineffective. The real point of this plan is to keep the rich paying a proportionately (ridiculously) smaller amount into the system.

But if you simply did away with that cap, the system would be solvent, with no other changes, for another 75 years minimum. But heaven forbid we ask the rich to proportionately pay into the system that made them rich. Oh no, that would hurt the uber-rich, Bush's base, the Elite. They wouldn't be quite as filthy rich as they are now. And wouldn't that just be awful?!

Ok, to recap:

I've heard people whine, "Why do you want to penalize people for being rich?" I'm not penalizing them, but I don't want to reward them either by giving them more money from the pockets of the poor and middle class. Being rich is its own reward. I just expect them to pay their fair share.

Bush hasn't forgotten the Social Contract that is the philosophical backbone of our form of government, he just likes using it as toilet paper.

5/8/2005:   So the other day Laura Bush decided to try her hand at stand-up comedy at the White House press dinner. She roasted her intelligence-challenged hubby on such things as ranching, geography, and basic pronounciation.

Some of her lines were inappropriate. The biggest shocker was when she gaily reported that George once attempted to milk a male horse. Y'know, when Bill Clinton fell from grace over the vow-breaking, bald-faced lying fiasco that was MonicaGate, I felt that, no matter who occupied the (once) hallowed office of President should aspire to return to that position the class it had lost. Apparently that was too much to ask of the Bush clan. Ignoring the public embarrassments of the Bush daughters and accepting the murderous elitism of Gee Dub himself, I guess I just assumed that Laura could be relied on in some measure to provide what little class this administration could supply.

I was wrong.

Dear Laura Bush,

On the topic of your recent experiment with comedic delivery: don't give up your day job. Instead, try to get George, for the sake of the nation and our children, to give up his.

And on that topic, how does it feel to be married to the biggest murderer-by-proxy in U.S. history? How does it feel to know that you birthed his progeny, and that your daughters carry the genetic code that could result in decendants with the same capacity for killing people needlessly?

And lastly, I may be spitting in the wind on this, but please try to show more class. I realize George and your daughters are a lost cause, but perhaps you can still salvage some portion of your family's legacy and set the tone for a return of the Presidency to a higher bearing.

5/7/2005:   So now North Korea, identified early in Bush's first term as one of the members of the "Axis of Evil," has announced that it has extracted 8000 fuel rods from its Yongbyon reactor core and it processing the spent fuel to extract weapons-grade plutonium, enough to produce five or six nuclear weapons. The odd part being that they released that same news two years ago. I think Kim Il Jong has forgotten to take his meds or something. The old freak is slipping a bit.

But my question is, why isn't the U.S. invading Korea already? Here we've got a guy that actually has nuclear materials and technology at his fingertips, ready to be made into weapons of mass destruction. Y'know, WMDs? Those things we have expended nearly 2000 U.S. lives to find in Iraq? We don't need more CIA reports on Korea -- they're telling us they have the means and the will to create, deploy, and use nukes. Remember Bush, Cheney, Rice, and Rumsfield citing the "mushroom cloud" over and over until everyone on the planet (except the CIA because they knew better) hysterical and screaming for Saddam's ouster? Why aren't moving on this already? If for no other reason than to wrest the reins of this volatile country from an insane man?

5/6/2005:   Every now and then a crime occurs that just staggers me. This is one such. Jerry Hobbs of Zion, Illinois, has been charged with stabbing his 8 year old daughter and her 9 year old friend. They were brutally murdered.

A quick history: This guy was convicted in 2001 of assaulting his daughter's mother and chasing his neighbors around with a running chainsaw. Someone had the presence of mind to pick up a shovel and crack this moron in the head, then hold him down until the police could pick him up. Then in 2003 he violated his parole by skipping failing to visit with his probation officer and skipping his anger management courses (which he apparently sorely needed). He's been in and out of jail on numerous other charges as well.

In short, a real pin-headed winner.

So now he is the prime suspect in the killing of his daughter, a beautiful little girl, only eight years old. He admitted to doing it. Which brings me to this: I want to address the problem of parents killing their kids.

I just can't understand how people get to a point where they kill their kids. I look at my daughters and I know I would take a bullet for any one of them on their worst days. What could an 8 year old girl do to make a grown man wan to kill his own kid? I just don't get it. I can't get enough of my girls, of sharing their childhoods with them, of loving them and experiencing their love for me. If anything happened to them, there isn't a word I can think of to describe the utter destruction of my psyche that would result. I think it would just about kill me to harm someone else's kid, much less my own. So how does a man come to a point where he can kill his own small child? I just don't understand it.

But anyone that murders their own minor child should not be killed. Oh no. That's way too easy. I propose that someone who kills their own small child should be placed in solitary confinement, with absolutely no human contact whatsoever. Leave them there to ponder their crime mixed with the knowledge that society universally finds them so heinous and animalistic that we must turn their hurt back on themselves as much and for as long as possible. Perhaps such a sentence would change the status of children in everyone's eyes, not just the good parents among us. Perhaps then we might restore the sanctity of childhood, or at least infuse a chilling fear in those that would hurt our children.

5/5/2005:   If you don't follow the ABC's hit series "Lost", then just skip this part.

My guess: the hatch leads to a lab. The compatriots of the lady on the far side of the island died when exposed to whatever experimentation was being done by the people in the lab. The lab specializes in nanotechnology, but the nanobots (nanites?) have far exceeded the expectations -- and life expectancy -- of their creators. The mother of the boy on the island was one of the scientists. Infected with the nanobots, she returned home, subsequently passed some of them on to her son, then died. He adjusted to them, and gained some kind of super powers as a result. Meanwhile, one of the other survivors of the original experiments has mutated horribly and now roams the island as a giant beast. It will turn out he was the lead scientist and a former bad guy now sentenced by his own ambition to live out his life as a raging grotesquery. Locke's healing and visions are also a symptom of these nanobots, although how he came to be healed so quickly after the crash leaves some questions. And the numbers? The supercomputer that still runs the now deserted lab has been tracking people in the outside world that were infected with the nanobots, but it's damaged, and it's association engine sees a non-existent connection between the supposed-cursed lottery numbers and itself. It thinks Hurley is its creator, and he will be key to shutting down the renegade experiments. This same supercomputer arranged to have some of the people on the same plane, then affected the plane's navigational systems to draw it near. The storm: a product of the computer's systems? Who knows? Maybe. The entire island is more than off the beaten path, it's off limits and made so by international agreement. Boone didn't know it, but he made contact, before his fatal plunge, with the guys that were supposed to be monitoring the island, the last two guys of an vigilance operation that was reduced due to budget cuts. So the U.S. military might send the cavalry in to save them -- or to clean them up.... The question then becomes, can Hurley save them all by directing the supercomputer to defend them or will the Air Force mop up the last of a very big mess first?

How's that for a wild and crazy prediction?

And here's my prediction of what's going through Terry O'Quin's mind as he fantastically plays the cryptic Locke: "I'm working again! And... I'm a STUD!"