3/31/2007:   Sure enough, Bush is now calling the British sailors held captive by Iran, "hostages." He's attempting to invoke the memory of the 53 hostages taken by militant university students in Iran (makes you wonder what their version of Home-Ec is like, doesn't it?) back in 1978 and released the day Ronald Reagan was sworn into office.

It was an incredibly embarrassing situation for Carter, who refused to attack, especially after a poorly planned and sadly uncoordinated operation to rescue them failed, resulting in the deaths of 8 servicemen, the loss of 5 helicopters (which are now part of the Iranian Navy's arsenal) and the inadvertent abandonment of highly classified documents. Carter lost the next election simply because he had shown himself to be weak and ineffective in the face of the hostage crisis. The people of the United States were humiliated, and most continue to carry a grudge where Iran is concerned.

And now Bush, who clearly has been trying to find a reason to commit the U.S. to an invasion of Iran in order to continue the goals of PNAC, has evoked one of the worst images in the history of the United States. There's no question that Iran's current leadership, their sprint towards nuclear armament, and their history of religious extremism pose a horrible threat to the world. But who gave those leaders the full backing of their people for such a terrible transformation in military power? George W. Bush, with his insane attack on Iraq.

Bad enough that George's reference paints Tony Blair as the British equivalent of Jimmy Carter in the worst failing of his foreign policies. Now George is going to finish his term in office by attacking Iran as well and either plunging us into a nuclear war or driving the world's Muslims into a rabid rage and guaranteeing an escalation in terrorism the likes of which the world has never known.

You just watch.

3/30/2007:   So in testimony today, Alberto Gonzales claimed he now could not recall being part of the meetings in which the plans to fire several U.S. attorneys were discussed. Because that's what they do in the Bush administration. You nail them on something, and suddenly they stop denying and say, "Wow! I don't remember that... Hm. Well, gosh gee willickers, that's embarrassing. I wonder why I did that? I was just sure I didn't, but there ya go, everyone's saying I did. Are you sure I did that, cause y'know, I just don't even remember that. Hm."

Is there a single adult in the entire administration with the moral fiber to admit when they screw up? Not one, huh? Yeah, I didn't think so...

3/30/2007:   So am I the only one that sees the seizure of British sailors in the same light as the Iranian hostage crisis of the 1970s?

3/29/2007:   I keep ignoring this rumor, but it keeps rearing its ugly head. There are rumors going around that Newt Gingrich has some kind of chance of running for president in 2008. So to address the rumor, I just want to say:

Cool!

I can't think of a better candidate to replace the divisive "uniter", the elitist "every man", the flipflopping "decider", than the utterly uniting, nonpartisan, altruistic, warm and fuzzy moral leader of the 1990s GOP, Newt Gingrich.

(long pause)

Sorry, I was laughing so hard one of my ribs actually shot out of my chest, shattered my kid's science fair project the night before it's due, flew out the open garage door and dented my Porsche, and then lodged in my dog's skull, killing her instantly. Given the hilarity of that statement, I'd say it was worth it.

I can't believe that the leadership of the GOP is so brain damaged that they think they have a winning formula in the Bush administration that they just need to repackage. And I find it stunning that, when looking for a new hero, they reach back to an era in which the U.S. President was hounded day and night by a corrupt special prosecutor whose only goal was to carry on spurious investigations of anyone and everyone even distantly connected with the President in an attempt to force them to give fabricated testimony to bring that President down, and failing that, used that President's infidelity with an aide to ambush him. And who was the architect and principle driver of that monumental and nationally disgracing project, all while carrying on his own duplicitous affair while his wife was dying of cancer?

You guessed it: Newt Gingrich.

So frankly, I think it's wonderful that they've selected Newt. I can't think of a man with less of a chance of winning the election following the performance of the worst president in history and a fellow Republican, George Bush.

Go, Newt! Run baby run!

3/29/2007:   Sitting here watching "Blade Runner," the original version, not the jacked up director's cut, and I'm bouncing around to the best scenes. Some of the best topics are explored in this movie. There's the scene where Roy Batty tricks his way into Dr. Terrell's apartment, and has a conversation that all of mankind wants to have: an interview with his creator.

Terrell: "I'm surprised you didn't come here sooner."
Batty: "It's not an easy thing to meet your maker."
Terrell: "And what can he do for you?"
Batty: "Can the maker repair what he makes?"
Terrell: "Would you like to be modified?"
Batty: "I had in mind something a little more radical."
Terrell: "What… What seems to be the problem?"
Batty: "Death."
Terrell: "Death? Well, I'm afraid that's a little out of my jurisdiction. You -"
Batty: "I want more life…fucker."

And then they go over why they can't extend the lives of replicants. Once Roy understands that they just don't have the technology:

Terrell: "But all this is academic. You were made as well as we could make you."
Batty: "But not to last."
Terrell: "The light that burns twice as bright burns half as long, and you have burned so very, very brightly, Roy. Look at you. You're the prodigal son. You're quite a prize."
Batty: "I've done questionable things."
Terrell: "Also extraordinary things. Revel in your time!"
Batty: "Nothing the god of biomechanics wouldn't let you in heaven for?"

When Roy and Terrell are discussing the technical details, it's clear that Roy is very intelligent and understands quite a bit of the problem. His creator fills him in on the missing details and, in the process, reveals his own limitations. With the last answers to the only questions that mattered to him, Roy no longer needs his creator. So he kills him. Is that what Man will have done when he understands his world beyond a certain point? Or is the ever-expanding perimeter around our constantly swelling circle of knowledge enough to continue supplying the mystery that is our concept of God? Roy's murder of Terrell is awful, cataclysmic. Will the death of the God concept be a simple, unnoticed fact? Roy is no longer fettered by any concern whatsoever once death is inevitable, and his time is running out. Has mankind already passed the point of truly believing that he understands or needs his creator? Is our time running out? Freed by the growing conviction, in some percentage of the population, that, if there is a creator, that creator is beyond responding to our needs, what will we do? Apparently, we are becoming self-destructive, uncaring, in spite of Al Gore's best attempts.

3/29/2007:   So some of the guys from "Whose Line Is It Anyway?" (not the slightly lame BBC version, but the completely hysterical American version), Colin Mochre and Brad Sherwood, attempted to help Karl Rove be funny during the Radio and Television Correspondents' Association Dinner. Karl was about as funny as a bump on a log. The guy has no apparent humor at all, no dancing ability, and really, astonishingly little social skills. He joked about "ripping the tops off little animals." He meant ripping their heads off, but his gaffe seemed a bit too Freudian and the laughter to it seemed polite and nervous. After trying with painful results to get the man to give them a little material to work with by asking him about his hobbies (he's a philatelist, which he didn't bother to explain -- turns out he collects stamps, but his self-image won't allow him to just say, "collecting stamps"), the comedians gave up and decided to just carry the show by doing one of their more popular routines from "Whose Line Is It Anyway?" On the show, they take someone from the audience and do a song or rap about them, completely made up off-the-cuff. These two are pretty good at it, although the real master of that routine is Wayne Brady. Anyway, since Karl was standing there like a stage-shocked 6 year old, they gave him one line, "I'm MC Rove," and away they went.

Lord help us.

Now keep in mind this was the same night that Bush made yet another moronic attempt at stand-up comedy. Y'know, I've decided that comedy is best delivered by someone that appears to actually get the joke. Bush was clearly reading from a script, and often didn't seem to understand the point of the joke or that he was the butt of the joke. It was painful, but not as painful as Karl attempted to dance.

His stage shock wore off, and now he was like a sugared up 6 year old. Really.

And in the middle of jumping up and down and side to side like an tuxedoed idiot, he pulled out his Blackberry and text messaged someone. He's truly the most evil geek (most geeky villian?) that ever lived.

3/26/2007:   Monica Goodling, senior counsel and White House liaison to Alberto Gonzales, is going to plead the Fifth. Her attorney explains, "The public record is clear that certain members of the Senate Judiciary Committee have already reached conclusions about the matter under investigation and the veracity of the testimony provided by the Justice Department to date... Ms. Goodling will not answer questions before the Committe or its staff udner these circumstances. The potential for legal jeopardy for Ms. Goodling from even her most truthful and accurate testimony under these circumstances is very real."

What circumstances would those be? Well, it seems another senior Justice Department official said that Mrs. Goodling was responsible for his misleading statements.

So this boils down to, first rape the Constitution, then hide behind it.

3/26/2007:   I'm sitting here working like a dog, and had to take a break, and I thought I'd throw out a research topic. I wonder if there's a connection between people that were bullies in high school and people that believe that the Iraq war was necessary and support George Bush's policies there. I heard a reference to Bill Clinton being called a scumbag by a leading GOP member when he sent our troops into Kosovo to stop the "ethnic cleansing" that was laying waste to hundreds of thousands of innocent people, and that got me to wondering about kind of person that thinks that shoving our lifestyle and culture down other people's throats is a more worthy expenditure of the lives of our military personnel than defending innocent men, women, and children. Are these the same people that bullied their schoolmates?

I think it would make for a pretty interesting thesis topic. I think it says something about someone, or even about some organization, when a president can lie to your face, get thousands of Americans killed in the war that results, and they'll stand by that president no matter what. But if you send troops in to save hundreds of thousands of lives, you're a scumbag. Wow. I think there's a mental deficiency in bullies that translates into this kind of complete disregard for human life or doing the right thing when they get older.

3/25/2007:   People who thought the Republicans had any kind of chance of holding on to power in 2006:

I want to take this opportunity to just keep on laughing in your faces.

And before I leave, Niel Boortz, in an effort to deflect the use of "civil war" as a description of the conflict in Iraq at this time, had the temerity to define the term as a war between two groups for control of a government. By that weird and limited definition he had to admit that the U.S. Civil War wasn't a civil war at all. Fortunately we have the dictionary to fall back on, which says that civil war is a war between two groups in the same country. Period. Nothing about control of the government. Thank you Niel for trying; now go sit in the corner and don't speak.

3/25/2007:   Remember this quote by Alberto Gonzales, delivered over the weekend: "I accept responsibility for the mistakes that were made in implementing of the decisions, but, but... at the end of the day, I want to reassure the U.S. attorney community and... uh... the American people is that... is that there's nothing improper, no improper motives, uh, in connection with the removal of these [garbled] appointees."

Keep that one in mind. That, and the interview that Gonzales gave in which he says he had no idea "where things stood" that directly conflicts with documents released Friday that show he had an hour-long meeting with his staff about the pending firings just before the pink slips were handed out, will dog him. Hopefully to the point of a Congressional trial for lying to Congress, but we'll see.

3/25/2007:   Chuck Hagel, reknowned and outspoken Republican and senior United States Senator from Nebraska, dared to suggest that, not only is Bush impeachable for abdicating his responsibilities, but even prophesizing that impeachment might actually occur.

This is the same man, in reaction to the Constitution-weakening Patriot Act, that said, "I took an oath of office to the Constitution, I didn't take an oath of office to my party or my president." Amazing. Can we clone this guy? Imagine: a Republican that is not a complete traitor! A member of the GOP that loves his country! Shocking!

And so, for standing up for what is right, for standing for the Constitution and the future of our country, Mr. Hagel is hereby honored with the highest honor this site awards, The Spine Award Of The Month.

3/25/2007:   Ruben Navarrette, columnist for CNN, doesn't get it. In his last column, he used his general impression of Alberto Conzales as "an honorable public servant," Gonzales' traitorous record notwithstanding, to pooh-pooh the calls for the U.S. Attorney General's resignation over the firing of 8 U.S. attorneys. He pretends he can't hear the real reason given, that the firings were in response to the failure of these attorneys to follow orders to ambush Congressional candidates in the 2006 election with investigations based on various trumped up charges. I'm not sure what part of "election tampering" Mr. Navarrette is fuzzy about. To abuse one's office to skew election results in a fraudulent manner is certainly grounds for impeachment... uhm... firing. But instead of acknowledging the obvious, Mr. Navarrette would rather pretend that his critics are racist.

So let me get this straight: You stand by Gonzales because you can connect with him, you can empathize with him, you're an outspoken critic of anyone that has anything to say about anyone of Mexican descent, and you are calling your critics racist? Really?

Mr. Navarrette, I would suggest that you do a bit of soul-searching, because right now you're only doing yourself a disservice by continuing to put on injured airs. Gonzales, even ignoring his past crimes against the Constitution, has vastly overstepped his bounds and should be relieved of his duties. The only reason Bush doesn't fire him is because, in his current position, he is of immense use as a protective tool.

The operative word there being, "tool."

3/23/2007:   "There is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq, to the insurgency of Iraq."

Those are the words of U.S. General David Petraeus. Basically, what he's saying is that the civil war in Iraq is not something the U.S. can win. It requires political maneuvering and diplomacy, the kind that can only originate with the Iraqi government and any and all recognized leaders of the various warring factions.

So where does that leave us?

Waiting to be rescued. We either prop up the Iraqi government and army as best we can and get out, or we stand there like the Dutch boy with his finger in the dike waiting for someone to rescue us. That someone is supposed to be the Iraqis themsevles, but that just doesn't look like it's going to happen...

3/23/2007:   Newt cheated on his wife. Not that that would normally be any of my business, but he was cheating on her at the same time that he was persecuting Clinton for the same. His poor-me excuse goes like this: "There are times that I have fallen short of my own standards. There's certainly times when I've fallen short of God's standards."

Do you see how stupid the all-consuming pursuit of power can make you? Gingrich architected the largest unwarranted attack on the presidency in history in order to set up the "pay to play" GOP that we are now plagued with. Pulling the "God card" just makes it slimier and more repugnant. Newt was an ass then, he's an ass now, and his excuses just make him a more pathetic ass.

3/23/2007:   Karl Rove on Barrack Obama: "He's a very strong figure on the national stage. But something tells me that people are going to say [they want] experience and depth. As a result it's going to be, 'Can he live up to the standards?'"

You mean the standards that Bush set? Y'know Karl, I honestly believe that my seven year old would make a better president than your Monkey Faced Frat Boy. We need someone who will catch the bad guy, take care of the good guys, don't lie, don't cheat, don't steal, don't pick fights, clean up your mess, leave things better than how you found them, and be as nice as possible to everyone in the process.

Yeah, dipstick, Barrack is lightyears ahead of Bush in "living up to the standards." No problem.

3/23/2007:   A week ago today, Hillary Clinton uttered the words, "It really does matter whether you have a failed province or a region that serves as a petri dish for insurgents and al-Qaeda... it is directly in opposition to our interests."

Talk about stating the obvious.

It's the last part that really twists the knife, though. The president is supposed to have gone to war to protect our lives, liberties, and interests, and his treatment of the United States, its citizens, military members, natural and economic resources, and his purported answer to terrorism have been in direct opposition that lofty goal.

You go, girl!

3/22/2007:   The Senate Judiciary Committee authorized its chairman to subpoena Karl Rove and Harriett Meirs. The House and Senate have now both approved that authorization. The two houses are united in their stand that informal and off-the-record interviews are laughably insufficient to answer Congresses need to determine if they were lied to by Alberto Gonzales.

The heat is going up, and the monkey is sweating. The organ grinder must be really pissed off right about now.

3/22/2007:   Some family is going to lose their kid. The state is stepping in and taking him away because, at seven years old, he weighs 254 lbs.

No, that's not a typo. Two hundred and fifty four pounds.

That's more than I ever have weighed, and I'm 6'2". This kid weighs nearly 5 times as much as my seven year old. He's bigger around than he is tall.

His mother is no dainty flower either, and she just can't seem to connect the grocery bill with the ballooning of her kid. She made the sad mistake of showing the cameraman the diary she keeps of her kid's meals. Breakfast included four scrambled eggs and a slice of cheese. Lunch was 5 vienna sausages, popcorn, and a Nutrigrain snack bar. Dinner as a hamburger steak and a sweet potato. Compare that with my diet for the day. I had a cup of cereal and a cup of coffee for breakfast. I can't remember the last time I had four eggs at a sitting in the morning. I'll probably have a protein shake here in a minute since I'm actually trying to gain weight. At lunch I'll have a sandwich with a few deli slices of turkey and some mustard. A couple of hours later, another protein shake and another cup of coffee. Then dinner. Tonight we'll have fish sticks and veggies. Add that up, and I'll bet you my caloric intake is smaller than this kid's. Add to that the fact that I lift weights with some regularity and I can't seem to get rid of the spare tire, and you can see why this kid is having trouble getting the weight off. He can't move! For crying out loud, he has serious mobility problems. Here's a thought: why don't he and his mother both see serious dieticians and plan out regular, physical, outdoor activities to burn off calories. I'm just guessing, but I'd say this kid has never ridden a bike in his life.

Well, apparently the state has decided to step in and do the commonsense stuff the mother isn't. And I'm conflicted about it. The mother is consigning this child to a life of misery and physical ailments, but should her child be taken away? Maybe I just answered my own question...

3/22/2007:   Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Aso is the frontrunner for taking over as Prime Minister in Japan. Yesterday he said that if you have blonde hair and blue eyes, Middle Eastern countries won't trust you, but the Japanese are trusted because they have "yellow faces."

This is the same guy that said he wanted to make Japan a place where "rich Jews" would want to live. I don't think he was referring to producing high priced kosher sushi.

Yeah, apparently Bush's long lost Asian brother has surfaced and is a politico in Japan. My hopes for the future grow dimmer by the minute...

3/22/2007:   I usually like Ruben's articles, but he said something in today's article about Alberto Gonzales' woes that surprised me. He said, "As a political columnist, I cover liars for a living. And yet, I'd say Gonzales is pretty much as advertised by his old friend, President Bush: an honorable public servant."

What the -?

The torture czar, the architect of the Patriot Act and EO 13233, the point man for warrantless wiretapping, (oh hell, the list goes on and on) is "an honorable public servant"? Are you kidding me?

I think Navarrette is siding with his homey, and frankly I'd come to expect a more colorblind point of view from him. Ruben, you've shaken my faith in you.

3/22/2007:   This morning Lou Dobbs released a opinion piece on CNN's website that took the position that the scandal over Alberto Gonzales lying to Congress about his knowledge of the firings of U.S. attorneys for political reasons is just so much fluff.

I think Lou is pretending at an ignorance that he simply doesn't have.

I've been reading Lou's articles for a while now, and I find him insightful, passionate, and usually right on the money. But this time Lou is pretending that Congress isn't looking for leverage against the president himself. As Paul Begala brilliantly put it, "It's about the organ grinder, not the monkey."

Most of Lou's verbage expounds on the near-criminal actions of Bush's administration in gutting our economic, diplomatic, and military resources, and reiterates the common knowledge that Bush and his cronies have no respect for the law whatsoever. But then he comes back to the obtuse view that John Conyer's machinations add up to mere grandstanding.

Lou, this contest between Congress and the president is primarily about leverage, and secondarily about pushing back. Not that I mind you taking any and every opportunity to enumerate the president's sins, but disparaging the efforts of a Congress that has finally been set free of corrupt GOP shackles sends the wrong message. In the face of Nancy Pelosi's cryptic mandate to take impeachment off the table, patriots like John Conyers are doing whatever they can to represent the people of this nation who are tired of having their government subverted by the likes of Bush.

3/21/2007:   On Wolf Blitzer's "Strategy Session", Paul Begala, in reference to Alberto Gonzales and George Bush, said, "If he [George Bush] fired Gonzales today, this scandal would not go away. It's about the organ grinder, not the monkey."

hee hee! Oh man, that's beautiful... Gonzales is the Monkey Faced Frat Boy's monkeyboy... LOL!!

3/21/2007:   Personally, I think the current conception of presidential executive privilege should be thrown out and a new conception designed that limits any pronouncement of privilege to those carefully delineated and codified into law. And the first privilege that should go should be any kind of secrecy. The presidents advisors should fully expect that their conversations with the president belong to the people, and their words will be part of the historical record. Bush would have you believe that governmental transparency, even delayed 12 years, renders his advisors incapable of doing their jobs correctly. That's a little like a bank teller complaining that having their till counted every night, ostensibly to protect against theft, prevents them from doing their job as a teller. It's a specious argument designed to delay and obfuscate, and it should not be tolerated by the Congress or the Supreme Court.

3/21/2007:   Yesterday Congress okayed the use of subpoenas to call Karl Rove and Harriet Miers before Congress to submit testimony under oath concerning the possible political motivations behind the firings of eight U.S. federal attorneys. Bush, who had earlier offered to allow Congress to interview the two advisors but not under oath, announced that if subpoenas were issued, he'd take the fight all the way to his loaded Supreme Court. He whined that his cabinet had supplied Congress with records of White House emails, and that he'd supply them with any other information they needed.

And here's the rub: as I understand it, there is no actual constitutional basis for Congressional subpoenas. They traditionally carry the weight of law, but there is no mention of Congressional subpoenas in the Constitution or any amendment to it. So is it possible for Bush to overthrow a 200 year old tradition? It's not like he hasn't done it before; Iraq was the first pre-emptive war in the United States' history.

But Congress cannot expect truthful answers unless these men are forced to attend a meeting with Congress and answer its questions under oath under threat of prison time. Lying to Congress is a felony, if I recall correctly, with a minimum jail time of 5 years.

And lest you think Congress is being heavy-handed, there's already evidence that Bush is tampering with evidence: the email logs have a 16 day gap in them. He's hiding information as he's always done when scrutinized (remember he had his records as Texas Governor esconced in his daddy's presidential library, unavailable to the general public and not even accessible via a FOIA request) and he signed Executive Order 13233 on November 1st of last year to further hide his messages to and from his advisors from public scrutiny after he leaves office. He geniunely believes the president is actually a sort of bought and paid for monarchy and that we commoners have no rights whatsoever outside of those he can't steal away from us.

What a scumbag. I hope he loses his fight and Rove is skewered until he finally spews forth everything he knows about Bush and let's his rot the way he deserves. As it is, there is a bill moving through Congress, H.R. 1255, "The Presidential Records Act Amendments of 2007", that will repeal Bush's EO 13233 and again supply a much needed transparency to our government so we can find the mistakes of the past and address them.

3/19/2007:   I've gotten quite a lot of complimentary comments on the Terrorism Timelines I've posted in the past. I just came across some new and interesting nuggets of information that make Condie Rice look like the big fat liar that she is, and I felt compelled to update my last timeline and put it where you can easily find it. Check the sidebar at the top for the lastest addition to the menu (if you can't see it, click here.

3/16/2007:   There are some traitors in the Senate, Republican wearing Democratic clothing, and they've thrown more soldiers under the tank by voting down the House approved bill to shut down the Iraq operation and move troops out of the way of harm. The Pentagon and Department of Defense have independently released reports stating in clear language that the Iraq conflict has degraded beyond the point of insurgents battling an occupying force, beyond a civil war (while politicians were dithering about whether or not that label fit), and has descended into near anarchy. But in the Democratically controlled Senate, the following "Democrats" thought it was necessary to either leave them there, put more in, or wait until a perfect plan was proposed.

Imagine if you were dying of cancer and a team of doctors wouldn't operate until they all agreed on the perfect way to eliminate the cancer. Meanwhile, your internal organs are failing and, to put it tactlessly, you're circling the drain. In the corner of your eye you can see a long tunnel with a bright light at the end. You keep seeing your dead uncle Bernie greeting you. You overhear your kids talking glibly about what they're going to do with your 401k and your baseball card collection. You're going down, and there are a couple of doctors on the team who won't accept the plan and are holding up the whole process because it doesn't jerk the cancer out in one fell swoop or because they think they should give your body more time to fight the cancer. You're ready to pick up the scalpel and start operating on yourself, but the doctors are ignoring your impending death to bicker.

Imagine if firemen were fighting a fire that was just getting worse, in a structure threatening to collapse and kill them all, and several chiefs refused to pull them out because they couldn't agree on which exit the firefighters should use.

Imagine if you were out hiking with your dog, and you find yourself in a situation where your dog, a huge, muscular pit bull, is suddenly surrounded by a huge, snarling, group of wolves. Would you refuse to try to save your dog because, among all the sticks and rocks lying around, there wasn't a Louisville Slugger baseball bat?

Of course not.

You'd snatch up the biggest stick you could find, let out your best caveman roar, and wade in swinging like crazy. And you'd keep swinging until you could get you and your dog out of there or at a vantage point that made it hard for the wolves to attack you. Because your dog is your family, and how could you live with yourself if you just ran off and let your buddy get torn to pieces?

Then how can you turn your back on our troops and let them get torn to pieces? What hole in your soul allows you to leave them in the middle of a conflict that can't be won.

And let's define the term "win" as it applies to Iraq, shall we? The only "win" at this point, now that we have figured out that Bush lied about the WMDs, and now that Saddam, bad guy that he was, was captured, tried, convicted, and executed, is to stabilize the entire country, putting down enough elements of sedition, civil conflict, and insurgency against the occupation forces that the Iraq government can become proficient at performing these functions themselves.

Cool? Sound like a decent definition? Good.

It ain't gonna happen.

Let's not be stupid about this. We don't have the resources to put this mistake right. We don't have the military, the diplomatic relations, the international relations to pull it off, and we could be putting the ongoing billions allocated to this mess to better use. I mean, this is just stupidly simple. Bush is killing us all. The damage he's done is incalculable and incalculably expensive in terms of mere dollars and lives.

Majority leader Harry Ried gets it: "Five years of war, the president's current approach in Iraq is not working. The country is closer to chaos than stability. U.S. troops are policing a civil war, not hunting and killing the terrorists who attacked America on 9/11."

So simple. So right.

And so, with the measure going down 48-50, who are the Democrats that thought it was a good idea to let the patient die, let the firefighters burn, let their dog get ripped to pieces? Here's the list:

So, loved-ones of troops that die in the next couple of years, be sure to contact these Senators, along with all the Republicans (with the exception of Sen. Gordon Smith of Oregon, the only Republican apparently with a conscience) and let them now how you feel about their vote.

And when it comes time for you to vote, make it count.

3/15/2007:   Did you know that there is a provision of the Patriot Act that says that interim federal prosecutor appointees can serve indefinitely without facing Senate confirmation? Picture this scenario:

3/15/2007:   The Pentagon released a new report today that reiterated what the DoD said about 3 months ago. The Iraq conflict has gone beyond what could politely be termed a civil war. It's all out anarchy now. Casualties for the last quarter of 2006 were higher than at any other point in the conflict. Populations are being displaced. Ethnic and political groups are fighting each other. Iraqi security forces and Iraqi civilians are suffering the majority of casualties. And our troops are just meat for the grinder.

Thanks again, George. You ass.

3/15/2007:   The newly reminted House of Representatives has passed four fantastic bills in an attempt to roll back the horrible influence the Bush administration has had on the People's rights, freedoms, and control over our government. Check out these bad boys:

YEEHAW!!!

3/15/2007:   General Peter Pace, chairmain of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was actually quoted this week -- yes, at the beginning of the 21st century, believe it or not -- as saying, "I believe that military members who sleep with other military members' wives are immoral in their conduct, and that we should not tolerate that. I believe that homosexual acts between individuals are immoral."

Duncan Hunter, bigot on the loose, agreed with General Pace, saying, "I think the American people have some insight, and have some wisdom on this subject, and I think they certainly look at what has happened to the Catholic Church, and they look at their young men and women going into the U.S. military, and they want to those young men and women protected."

So he's comparing the officers in the U.S. military to pedophile priests. Nice.

The tool Mr. Hunter went on to say, "I think that's what Marines go to war and fight for, the freedom to have morals, to have principles, to have values."

No, in the case of Iraq they're fighting to die. They aren't protecting U.S. interests, defending against an enemy threatening our shores, fighting to protect the Constitution, or anything else for that matter. They're just dying in the streets of Baghdad so George W. Bush won't see himself as a coward, an idiot, a liar, or a murderer by proxy. Which he is, all of it.

But I'm getting away from the topic again. Mr. Pace apparently subscribes to the Ted Haggerty school of sexual orientation which states that homosexuality is a choice, not a hardwired trait. Mr. Pace is okay with the immorality of war, of killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians and calling them "collateral damage," but heaven forbid they allow gay men to participate in their bloodfest. Don't get me wrong; when someone hits you, you hit them back. Period. When someone attempts to take your life, you take theirs first. But that's not what happened in Iraq. Bush lied to get us to go to war; this war is completely immoral. Having gays in the military is the least of our problems.

You know what I'm going to do if there's a draft for this war and they raise the age limit enough to try to suck me in? I'm suddenly going to be gay! It's not like there's a test for it (What, do they check you for fabulous fashion sense? Does an admitted gay man look at you and decide if his "gaydar" goes off?) so how would they know better? Look at Ted Haggert?

3/14/2007:   John Couey kidnapped, raped, and buried alive a 9 year old girl. For that crime, which he admitted to and was convicted of by a jury, he has been sentenced to die.

Is anyone surprised?

I just don't think our society is prepared to allow people like Couey to continue living. Prison is not horrible enough to satisfy people's sense of vengeance combined with a desire for eye-for-an-eye justice. Couey had broken into a neighbor's house to rob them, and upon finding the girl decided to kidnap and rape her as well. Or maybe that was always part of the plan. Does it matter? He was a complete waste of flesh at that point in his life. How do you solve that? And even if you could, how do you replace the little girl? Obviously impossible. And so the death penalty remains.

Lately some prisoners in super-max prisons are complaining that the solitary confinement amounts to cruel and unusual punishment. That's obviously a stupid argument since part of the prison system's purpose is to serve as a deterrent. But would those men prefer death? Or would they see that as even more cruel and unusual? And what makes it unusual? The rarity of use? As it is a potent cocktail of drugs is used to put the condemned to sleep before stopping their vital functions. How cruel is that? Not very. Doctors do far worse when they perform open heart surgery. Is it the mere prospect of dying? Well, that, in my opinion, is just too bad.

But back to Couey.

I would be amazed if Couey was surprised by the verdict. Surely he knew as soon as police dug up the body of Jessica Lunsford that he would meet his end in a small chamber at the hands of the people of the state. And it's not like he never heard of the death penalty. I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that, just before he committed his crime, if you asked him how he felt about Richard Allen Davis, he'd probably tell you that scumbag deserved to be killed heinously, creatively, and as cruelly and unusually as possible.

I once heard that someone who is anti-guns is a future gun owner who hasn't been mugged yet. I think everyone has a point at which their heart hardens and they say, "Well, that guy is different. He needs to die." Davis, Couey, and a handful of guys just like them pop out of the filth at the bottom of the swamp of society and impress us with their sheer lack of humanity enough that we feel the need to kill them for what they've done. It's hard to feel anything but that need when you hear the details of their crimes.

And yet, the question still isn't fully answered, is it? Is the death penalty morally defensible? The facts are easy, but there's something disturbing about it, even so. Every time someone gets the death penalty, I turn it over in my head and wonder, repulsed and compelled.

Take the emotion out of it and it's academic to me. The death penalty makes us as bad as the murderers we convict. But you can't take the emotion out of it, can you? It's too strong a topic. The crimes are too wrenching, the damage to the living too severe.

Another time...

3/14/2007:   Vicente Fox, the bastard best friend of George W. Bush that, as president of Mexico for 6 years, gave the Mexican drug cartels free reign, widened the chasm between his nation's poor and uber-rich, let the national economy and healthcare system stagnate, is finally out of office, replaced by Felipe Calderon.

Fox, called by his ex-mother-in-law, "that Apache," has finally had his inept fingers pried off the power he held, and a man with an actual plan has stepped up. Calderon has called out the military and federal police to quell violence and clamp down on drug cartel activities. He's extradited cartel and gang leaders to the U.S. for prosecution. He's got economic policy and immigration changes planned. He's actually going to earn his title rather than glorying in it. Wow.

I wish our president would do that.

Instead, our president was quoted yesterday as saying that packing lettuce on a farm in South America was "fun" and the "high point" of his presidency. Throughout the entire speech, he sounded like a complete simpleton discovering fingerpainting. I wonder how many soldiers were killed or injured in Iraq while he was thrilling to the discovery of vegetable farming. I wonder how many illegal immigrants crossed the border and, hidden in their midst, future terrorists? I wonder which channels Osama Bin Laden flicked through, munching on humous and throwing back a Diet Coke? I wonder how many people died that could have been saved by stem cell research? I wonder how many tons of drugs were sold on our streets, how many schools closed for lack of funding, how many tons of CO2 were released by factories who don't have to worry about environmental restrictions anymore, how many elderly people were turned away because they couldn't afford their meds, how many.....

My fingers were getting tired. Sorry.

My fellow Americans, would it be too much to ask to have a president that deserves the role, that won't be a complete and utter embarrassment? Packing lettuce... wow...

3/12/2007:   One of the most amazingly funny men in the entertainment industry, Richard Jeni, is dead. He was 49. I've noticed that some of the most memorable things are jokes. You'll hear a particular joke and it will stay with you forever. I can still quote entire routines that I've seen word for word because they were that funny. Mr. Jeni's routines were just that funny. He will be sorely missed.

3/12/2007:   So I decided to check out the Libertarian Party's stand on various issues, just out of curiousity. Like religion, I think it's shortsighted and ignorant to run towards the first choice and proclaim it the best without researching your other options to see where the best fit is, so from time to time I study the various major political parties to see where they stand. I wondered if the Libertarian Party had matured at all since the last time I'd checked. And what I found was...

They're still retarded.

Sorry, I shouldn't say that. They're not retarded. Unless by "retarded" one meant they still think legalization of all drugs will cure all the woes of modern society. Because apparently that's exactly what they think.

3/6/2007:   Here's my prediction following the conviction of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, literary porn author and former aide to Dick Cheney, for leaking the identity of a CIA agent:

(drumroll, please)

Bush made a deal with Scooter in which Scooter's attorneys would not call Cheney to the stand, Scooter would take the fall, and Bush would pardon him right after the elections. If Scooter can take the nightly visits from the large collection of "boyfriends" he'll have in the pen for that long.

It makes complete sense. He needed to call Cheney to the stand in order to substantiate the evidence and statements he'd made during the trial, and yet he never did. Even the judge stated that he was surprised and dismayed that Libby's attorneys didn't do the obvious. By undercutting his own case, Libby clearly fell on his sword. Now it's time for the other shoe to drop, and it's clear that Bush has three options:

3/6/2007:   This is my annual ping for a man named Roger Wesley Baker. Since my last entry in this blog about Roger, I was contacted by a lady that was friends with him for some time. She brought me up to date a bit. Apparently Roger goes by Wesley now, lived for a time in Alaska as a fisherman, and now resides somewhere in Washington. The information is getting dated and my attempts to call the Roger and Wesley Bakers in the areas she mentioned came up dry. So I'm still looking for him. Roger, if you're out there, drop me a line sometime, okay?

3/6/2007:   The following is an actual warning label on "Holy Drinking Water" bottled water, which is sold as a serious product by a serious little fellow by the name of Brian German, who seriously thought such a product was needed in the world to protect people from the devil:

He thought this up on June 6th of last year (6/6/06), but apparently he wasn't aware of a something called simeni (sp?), which is the Catholicism-defined sin of selling or purchasing spiritual items. Apparently neither are the various churchs that have stepped up to bless the water before it's shipped to the various retail outlets that carry it.

And to be honest, until I heard about this story, I wasn't aware of it either. So when people sell Bibles or crosses, aren't those considered spiritual? I would certainly think so. Or maybe it's the sin of selling imbued with powers emanating from God, something holy. Wouldn't you think a Bible or a cross pendant would be holy? Or are they? Was my old King James Edition blessed before it left the publisher? I would think it would be. What about the rosary beads hanging in my daughter's room? Wouldn't you think those would be blessed? Or are you supposed to purchase them unblessed and take them to your nearest priest to be initialized? And does Amazon know about this? They've got the King James Bible on sale right now. Does that make them a huge pack of semini-committing sinners? Sure sounds that way.

I probably sound like I'm being facetious, but I'm actually curious, as I think this through, how the religious world works within that stricture.

But getting back to facetiousness... Selling blessed water in plastic bottles by the shrink-wrapped 20 bottle rack?

(heavy sigh...)

3/5/2007:   Ann Coulter is so incredibly vile and repugnant that she actually turns off conservatives and spurs liberals and progressives to extreme measures. John Edwards, in a brilliant move, has turned this to his advantage. At CPAC, the place where hatemongerers, warmongerers, religious extremists, homophobes and 2nd Amendment mistranslating whackos get together to plot the overthrow of civil society, Ann Coulter was of course a featured speaker -- a "celebritard", if you will. No surprise; Ann has built a business out of catering to hatred, ignorance, and intolerance. It works. Tt's the short path, but it's a tried and true business model. It worked for Hitler and Rush Limbaugh, and Ann is just a transsexual crack-fiend offspring of Limbaugh's amoral agenda.

Okay, enough ranting...

Mr. ... ahem... Ms. Coulter stated that she couldn't comment on John Edwards because using the word "faggot" might land her in rehab. Base name-calling is essentially code for, "I wouldn't know what to say anyway because I'm either totally uninformed or my meds are messing with my memory, so let's just move on."

And to Mr. Edwards credit, he took that exact excerpt from a video taping of that event and played it at his own fundraiser, taking Ann's own vitriol and holding it up for the whole world to see.

Exactly what I would have done.

There's nothing quite as satisfying as taking someone's ugly moment at your expense and making quite sure the whole world is aware of it. Will Ann back down? Oh no, she can't! Her business relies on her being steadfastly ugly at all times. Not only won't she back down, but she won't go into rehab either. In fact, when asked about it, I'm willing to bet hard-earned U.S. dollars that she pooh-poohs the whole thing, laughs in her ditzy, never-going-to-quite-get-it valley girl head-toss laugh, then stare at the interviewing willing that person, in her best two-year-old death stare, to get hit by a truck and die.

And if I was John, I'd take that and add it to the first clip. I'd end up playing a ten minute montage of Ann being Ann and watch the people line up to pay someone -- anyone, really, but John because he's offering -- to stop that crazed lunatic bitch.

And everyone even remotely like her -- like George W. Bush, for instance.

3/5/2007:   CPAC, the "Conservative Political Action Conference," is probably one of the scariest collections of Constitution-hating traitors in America today. Let's look at the people they're actually bragging about having as speakers:

3/2/2007:   Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback was at CPAC, the new version of the Nazi rally, firing up his "social conservative" base as he attempts to take over the White House and bring back the hangar, lynchings, pillory, and the scarlet letter.

He pledged to the gun whackos, elitists, and aging former KKK members that as president he would appoint judges who support illegalizing abortion.

"We should fight for life and never be apologetic about it," he said. Keep in mind that Sam also feels we should continue feeding the meat grinder in Iraq, even though the Pentagon reported that the conflict there has descended past the point of a civil war to outright anarchy, and that we have no hope of achieving any real objective without committing millions of grounds troops to suppressing the entire population. And since that ain't gonna happen, we're really just sending good men and women to die for a Bush's lies. But I digress...

"...We need to get judges on the Supreme Court that will support and overturn Roe versus Wade," Brownback added. Ignoring his horrible grammatic construction, what he's threatening to do is put judges on the stand that will ignore precedent, ignore former decisions, ignore the law, and write the law from the bench. Isn't this what the NeoCons were accusing the Democrats of doing in the first place? So he's saying, "We accused the Dems of having activist judges, but no one bought that argument, so we'll just come right out and admit that we want our own activist judges since the legislature won't give us what we want."

Well isn't that special?