6/28/2006:   So much has gone on lately and I simply haven't had time to comment, but today I heard something that kicked me into high gear. Some lame-ass in Berkeley interviewed as part of a CNN report on impeachment actually uttered the following words: "I don't know of anything [Bush] did that was impeachable."

And there you have it. The greatest adversary to justice is ignorance.

The unibrowed, purse carrying, brain damaged fellow they chose to end their report with couldn't think of any reason why Bush would be impeached. One can only assume that, right after the camera was turned off, this poor simp crawled back under his rock, safe from news reports, facts, figures, and open debate.

How can you possibly enjoy moments of exposure to human contact without having also been exposed to word of Bush's crimes? How could this moron not at least be aware of Bush's lies to get us into Iraq, Bush's authorization of torture techniques that are against U.S. and international laws and treaties, and Bush's repeated authorization of domestic spying that violates every citizen's fourth amendment rights? These are the charges for which several states have passed resolutions asking that impeachment proceedings commence. Forget all the other transgressions he's committed against the American public, any one of these would be enough to get him kicked out of office. And the interviewed dirt breather can't come up with a single reason that Bush would be impeached?

I think Bush's attempts to cut educational funding are really paying off for him...

6/28/2006:   The Supreme Court, in spite of Alito's efforts, decided that the Geneva Convention and the principles on which the Constitution are founded trumps Bush's rabid desire to use military tribunals to try, convict, and execute the detainees at Guantanamo.

Boo-frikkin-hoo for Bush. Guess he'll have to either treat them like human beings or leave them there to rot forever, or until the next Democratic President moves them to trial in a non-military court. As the attorney for one of the detainess said, "If they'd used a fair system two and a half years ago, the trial would be done."

6/28/2006:   Letter to CNN on flag burning:

If they do it in front of me, I might have something to say about it, but I feel very strongly that flag burning is and should continue to be a protected form of personal expression.

It's quite clear to me that the politicians pushing this amendment aren't oblivious to the intent behind the First Amendment, but are using this smoke and mirror issue to divert attention from the hard issues that face this nation's leadership: the increasing number of laws our President and his staff are breaking, our continued occupation of Iraq and the useless expenditure of our military that has resulted, the failure to apprehend Bin Laden, the uncontrolled flow of illegal immigrants across our borders, the faltering quality of our public education system, the exportation of jobs, the trade deficit, global warming, the elimination of pollution controls, tax breaks for the rich during a time of war and economic problems, the breaking of treaties and international agreements that were put in place to secure peace, the complete destruction our foreign diplomatic relations, and the corruption of the Supreme Court with justices bought and paid for to press religious views into law from the bench, just to name a few.

6/4/2006:   Faced with the November elections that will pit Bush's poll numbers combined with Republican obstinance in addressing their out-of-control commander against the lack-luster but comparatively shining Democratic Party, the Republicans have abandoned fear-mongering for hate-mongering. They have turned homosexuals into the new Jews. I think the Monkey Faced Frat Boy would put them concentration camps if that would improve his numbers. So the next few months will be taken up with the freshly rehashed debate on whether or not to institutionalize discrimination and formally recognize homosexuals as second class citizens, not worthy of the rights and privileges given to heterosexuals.

The formula is easy: focus the energy of the majority using a common fear, ignorance, and hatred towards a minority group. Represent this newly formed majority faction. Enjoy the power.

It worked with Pol Pot and the intellectuals. It worked with Hitler and the Jews. It worked with Slobodan Milosevich and the Albanian Kosovars. It's a tried and true formula, and the only time it fails is when someone with more power stands up and says, "No. We will not stand by and watch this happen." Something has to be done to break the trance, and hatred casts such a hard spell. In this case, the only power that can stop the American people is the American people. Those of us that can't stand the thought of the corruption of America's ideals must stand together against Bush. The person to focus Americans against Bush must be a charismatic person from the Democratic Party. And the most solidly charismatic people at this juncture are Bill Clinton and Al Gore. The problem is, they also created and signed into law the Protection of Marriage Act. Perhaps from that standpoint they can say, "We did the right thing, because the wrong thing would be to cross the Constitutional line." But if they can't say that, then who will step up to protect America from the fundies?

From the Traditional Marriage Radio Ad: "Homosexual activists don't care if a child is deprived of a mom or dad." And homophobic hatemongers don't care of a child grows up in an orphanage without anyone to love and care for them, so long as they aren't around gays! And they call themselves "pro-family," as though gays are anti-family. What jerks...

6/4/2006:   One day we'll look back, as a society, with shame at the actions of our governing bodies in response to fundamentalist "Christians'" leaders' efforts to gain power from their flocks by turning them against homosexuals. The new power-grabbing move is to unite the sheep against gays attempting to share their lives together by committing themselves to each other formally within the sactity of marriage. Putting down blacks is so 1960s, and women have had the power to vote since the 19th Amendment passed in 1920, so what else is there to do when your power base is crumbling? There has to be someone to hate, someone to focus the negativity on. It's a formula that worked for Hitler, Lenin, and Milosevich, so why not for Bush?

I dare any Christian to look God in the eyes (oh wait, that's right, you can't...) and tell Him that he screwed up.

Really. Tell God that He made a HUGE blunder. Tell Him that He messed up gay people, and that, because they feel the way they feel and experience drives that are counter to what heterosexuals feel, that God screwed up gays. Because, by not accepting them the way they are, you are telling God that the way He made them is wrong. Period. Your actions are the measure that will be used against you on judgement day, so how will you explain expressing hatred towards consenting adults who love one another and wish to share their lives together the way God made them? Sure, maybe their desires weird you out a bit. They certainly weirded out the ancient tribesmen that started the folklore of their tribes that ended up evolving, being set on papyrus, and becoming the stories told in the Old Testament. But your nervous tics aren't their problem.

But it's back to the type of discrimination that so many fought against for the last century when applied to minorities and women. How long before we see drinking fountains marked, "Hetero Only?" We already have gay lynchings, so how long before we have coffee counters that don't allow openly gay couples and bathrooms marked, "No Fags"? How many Consitutional Amendments formalize discrimination? Anyone? That's right: Zero. How many would there be once Bush and his Moron Crew get done with it? That's an open-ended question, but for now let's just say: One. An amendment to our nation's foundation that would institute hatred and discrimination. How proud our founding fathers would be...

And if that doesn't make you think for a moment, then consider this: the Pilgrims came here to escape -- what? Class? Anyone? Anyone? Yes, in the back? No, Jimmy, they didn't come here to avoid history class. Anyone else? No? They came here to escape RELIGIOUS OPPRESSION. And what would an Amendment to the Constitution prohibiting same sex marriage be but religious oppression?

Now, someone somewhere is going to counter with, "Yes, but if they get 'married' and then force me, as an employer or provider of services to respect that 'marriage', aren't they pushing their religious views on me, and wouldn't then consitute 'religious oppression'?"

My gut reaction would be to say, no, that would be religious freedom. But in an effort to respect both sides, let just say, yes, that that door swings both ways. But rather than create an Amendment, why not just pass a law that defines marriage itself as between a man and a woman and allow civil unions? I'll tell you why: because you'd STILL be institutionalizing discrimination. No matter how you slice it, the Constitution is not the place for this type of law. Perhaps at the state level, but not the federal level. The federal government has no place dividing the nation into first class and second class citizens. That corruption of our most important document cannot be tolerated.

6/1/2006:   In case you've been living under a rock, the news has been plastered with reports of a war crime committed by our troops in a little town called Haditha in Iraq, reports of the murder of 24 unarmed civilians as retribution for the killing of one of the Marines by a roadside bomb.

Should these Marines be held accountable? Oh, absolutely. I'm sorry, but to allow these Marines to get away with this is to throw open the door to genocide. Our wartime laws are all that separate us from the monsters in Rwanda and the Congo who commit atrocities that would take most of the day to document and would give you nightmares for a lifetime.

Should we be surprised? No, of course not. War is the closest we come to reverting to savage animals. We kill ourselves in the most efficient and creative ways we can devise, using our huge brains, not to negotiate diplomatically, but to eliminate with extreme prejudice. We set aside our morals and begin murdering each other. We glorify those that do so successfully, and we memorialize those that are killed in that insane exercise. To be accurate, one group decides that diplomacy won't work, and the other side is then tasked with defending themselves in whatever manner seems best. It is horrid, wretched, and culturally ingrained. These soldiers are exposed to the very darkest part of humanity. To expect them to consistently, and to the last man, hold themselves to some high moral standard is just ridiculous.

For you armchair generals that think that preemptive war is an acceptable solution to your fears, your failings, your boredom, and/or your perception that the U.S. doesn't garner enough respect, let this serve as a reminder of the fruits of war. Pray that it never happens to you and yours.

6/1/2006:   Robert Redford posted an op-ed on CNN that boils down to this: America is ready to switch to smarter forms of energy, and all we need now is the leadership to make the right moves. Of course, that single sentence doesn't do it justice, so I recommend you read his piece. Mr. Redford is intelligent, articulate, grounded, and inspirational.

But I want to focus on that one sentiment, because Bush and the current membership of the Republican Party are not interested in steering us away from oil. They have, in their actions, made it crystal clear that they will ignore the environment and cater to big oil corporations until there is not one drop left to sell. Only then will they begin catering to whomever has the money to grease the political wheels.

America, if you're ready to reverse the staggering damage this president has done to your children's future, then express yourself with your vote. Replace the demi-dictatorship forming in the White House with people who believe in America before money, our kids before their wallets, and doing the right thing over power.