STUCK ON STUPID

"Iran's president said on Friday his country would pay no attention to international calls to halt its nuclear work, hours before the U.N. atomic watchdog reports on whether Tehran has met U.N. Security Council demands," Reuters reports from Tehran:

"Those who want to prevent Iranians from obtaining their right, should know that we do not give a damn about such resolutions," Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told a rally in northwest Iran, the official IRNA news agency reported.

Mohamed ElBaradei, chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), is expected to tell the council and the agency's board on Friday that Iran has not stopped enriching uranium or fully answered IAEA queries as the U.N. body asked a month ago.

On a related subject, here's an April 10 U.N. press release:

The recent record of the Disarmament Commission was far from satisfactory, but now, more than ever, it should use the opportunity of an agreed agenda to strengthen the disarmament machinery to effectively deal with new emerging threats and challenges, the new Under-Secretary-General for Disarmament Affairs, Nobuaki Tanaka, said today upon the opening of the Commission's substantive session. . . .

In other business, the following delegations were elected as Vice-chairpersons, by acclamation: Chile, Uruguay and Iran.

Chairing the U.N.'s disarmament commission is a country whose head of state doesn't "give a damn" about his obligations to the U.N. In light of all this, of what use is the U.N.? Indeed, isn't it worse than useless?

Priceless 

Priceless

American flag: $25
Gasoline $2
Cigarette Lighter $2.50

Catching yourself on fire because you're a terrorist asshole: PRICELESS

A Shortsighted Policy

The efforts by anti-war protestors at UC Santa Cruz to run military recruiters off campus, while successful, portends a dangerous trend for the Left. For a generation, universities around the country have kept the ROTC and recruiters off campus, ostensibly due to the ban on homosexuals serving in the military but more clearly due to an anti-military point of view. After the Supreme Court upheld the Solomon Amendment that gives the federal government the ability to cut off federal funding to colleges who block access to military recruiters, the students themselves have escalated the battle by driving them off campus through intimidation, as they did at the home of the Banana Slugs.

This represents a short-sighted policy by those on the Left, which comes as a piece from their reflexive dislike for all things military (the Left, as opposed to liberals). When they organize to force the military from their campuses, they deny access for their fellow students to the kind of opportunities that can eventually give them access to leadership roles in the armed services. Programs like the ROTC produce officers that often make the military their career, and while the Pentagon prefers academy graduates for promotion to the highest ranks, ROTC-trained officers have also risen to influential leadership positions. They certainly have had brilliant careers in the armed forces over the decades, and their contributions and influence have been remarkable.

The ROTC program allows for the widest possible sampling of the nation's best and brightest, ensuring that the officer corps reflects the nation as a whole, politically, ethnically, and geographically. However, the pressure from the most liberal universities to obstruct their students from entering the military has created an interesting dynamic: only the more conservative or moderate schools now contribute to the ROTC pool. The Solomon Amendment may have corrected that, but as the Banana Slugs have shown, the radicals will not allow it.

What kind of military leadership will this produce? We will have an increasingly conservative officer corps, one whose politics will not accurately reflect the nation's political spectrum. Even as a conservative, this worries me. The natural balance of viewpoints allow for the best decision-making. Moreover, it threatens to politicize the officer corps of the military in a manner which could eventually challenge civilian leadership, especially if a more liberal president gets elected. It sets up a potential conflict that could threaten the Constitution in a manner never seen before in the US. The open slots for officers will get filled, and if the Banana Slugs don't want to help fill them, then candidates will come from somewhere.

Chasing military recruiters off of the most liberal of campuses might give some kooks a thrill, but in the end it is self-defeating. It does not surprise me at all that these leftist radicals don't have the foresight to see this, but it does surprise me that the universities themselves fail to recognize it.

The President didn't leak squat.

IT'S amazing how the common topics and subjects of discussion three years ago should vanish so quickly from memory.

Yesterday, breathless news reports suggested that President Bush had directed the "leak" of classified information in July 2003. Yet the "leak" in question was from a document called the National Intelligence Estimate, or NIE - and by the time this "leak" occurred, the contents of the NIE as they related to Iraq were almost entirely public.

On Oct. 7, 2002, nine months before Bush's supposed "leak," the administration released an unclassified version of the very same NIE at the urging of Senate Democrats. And in early 2003, reporters hostile to the administration (primarily John Judis and Spencer Ackerman of The New Republic) were being told all sorts of things about the still-classified portions of the NIE.

And this "leak" wasn't a leak in any case. A "leak" is the unauthorized release of government information. The leak of classified information is a crime. But according to Scooter Libby, the former chief of staff to the vice president who gave the information from the NIE to a reporter, he only released it because he was authorized to do so by the president himself.

Constitutionally, the authority to declare documents "classified" resides with the president. So, under the terms of an executive order first drafted in 1982, he can declassify a document merely by declaring it unclassified.

The language of the executive order reads as follows: "Information shall be declassified or downgraded by the official who authorized the original classification, if that official is still serving in the same position . . . [or] a supervisory official." In the executive branch, the president is the ultimate "supervisory official."

We have found out about the president's decision to declassify information from the 2002 NIE because the special prosecutor who has charged Libby with perjury and obstruction of justice revealed elements of Libby's grand-jury testimony in new court papers.

The prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, claims Libby was involved in revealing the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame as a means of discrediting Wilson's husband, Joseph C. Wilson.

Wilson had written an op-ed in which he said he knew first-hand that the Bush administration had deliberately lied when it claimed Saddam Hussein was trying to buy uranium in Africa. (The CIA had sent Wilson, a one-time ambassador, to the African country of Niger for little more than a week in 2002 to check out the uranium story.)

Wilson was certain he could demonstrate that Libby had told Judith Miller of The New York Times about Valerie Plame's CIA employment at a meeting between the two on July 8, 2003. But Libby told the grand jury, in effect, that he met with Miller that day to give her information to discredit Wilson's op-ed that was far more potent than simply pointing out Wilson probably got the gig because his CIA wife was throwing the diplomatic has-been a bone.

According to Fitzgerald's court filing, Libby "testified that he was specifically authorized in advance of the meeting to disclose the key judgments of the classified NIE to Miller on that occasion because it was thought that the NIE was 'pretty definitive' against what Ambassador Wilson had said and that the vice president thought that it was 'very important' for the key judgments of the NIE to come out. [Libby] further testified that he at first advised the vice president that he could not have this conversation with reporter Miller because of the classified nature of the NIE. [Libby] testified that the vice president later advised him that the president had authorized [Libby] to disclose the relevant portions of the NIE."

Also lost in the mists of recent memory is the reason we're talking about this in the first place. Fitzgerald is involved in this story because he was asked to investigate whether the public exposure of Mrs. Wilson's CIA employment was a crime. For it to be a crime, she had to be a covert CIA operative who had served in that capacity at some point in the five years prior to her exposure - and the person exposing her had to be doing it consciously and with knowledge that she was covert.

Fitzgerald did not indict Libby or anybody else on those grounds. Even so, there's been a lot of harrumphing about the idea that the White House might have sought to discredit Wilson at all - that somehow doing such a thing was manifestly horrible.

But Wilson had claimed that he had inside knowledge that the White House knew Saddam had never sought to purchase uranium and that it went ahead and told a cock-and-bull story anyway - that, in other words, Bush had deliberately lied us into war.

That charge was so explosive that the Bush administration had no choice but to answer it in some fashion. By authorizing the release of some classified material to a reporter, Bush was fighting back against a slander.

And slander it was, no more and no less. The Senate Intelligence Committee specifically said Wilson came back from Niger and offered up some information suggesting Saddam had been pursuing nuclear material in Niger in 1999.

Wilson's appalling lies were revealed in 2004. And yet, here we are, in 2006, fighting the same old battles. Guess this is what happens when you don't win a war quickly enough.

The Cynthia McKinney Guide to "Racially Motivated" Arrests

As you are undoubtedly aware, Representative Cynthia A. McKinney (D-Black Pantheria) has landed herself in a spot of trouble. Ms. McKinney, an African American who's no stranger to controversy, allegedly assaulted a Capitol police officer who had the nerve to compel her to walk through a metal detector.

After an earlier display of semi-contrition, Ms. McKinney changed her stance and is now as mad as heck about the whole incident. What brought about such an about-face? Well, it appears as if Ms. McKinney may be charged for punching the officer in question. Thus pseudo-remorse has turned to righteous indignation.

But what kind of righteous indignation appealed to Ms. McKinney? You may be surprised to discover, dear reader, that Ms. McKinney decided to play the race card. Gee: We didn't see that one coming.

Carl Hulse's report in The New York Times perfectly encapsulates the congresswoman's Johnny Cochran-esque strategy:

One of her [McKinney's] lawyers, James Myart, said the case typified a pattern of police harassment of black Americans. "My belief is this is no different than that: 'they all look alike.'"

Wow. How mind-numbingly offensive is this? A Capitol police officer scrutinizes Ms. McKinney because she failed to wear a lapel pin that would have identified her as a Member of Congress. For his troubles, he gets punched by Ms. McKinney and accused of racism.

Interestingly, the Times report clearly attempts to portray the odious McKinney in the best possible light: It mentions that Republicans are purportedly interested in this brouhaha because it will "shift attention from a guilty plea to corruption charges Friday by a former senior Republican House aide." Well, gee: Thanks for that impartial observation.

Further, the Gray Lady refers to McKinney as "a lawmaker known for provocative statements." Hmm: We suppose that "provocative statements" is an acceptable synonym for "anti-Semitism." We wonder if they'd let David Duke off the hook so easily.

Given the brazenness of Congresswoman McKinney's trumped up cries of racism, one might reasonably wonder how she would respond to allegations for other crimes. Well, dear reader, wonder no longer. The Official Race-Bating Department here at "The Hatemonger's Quarterly" has come up with a list of potential McKinney responses to future criminal allegations.

So, before you take in another indignant McKinney press conference--obligatorily staged at a traditionally black college and graced with the obligatory presence of Danny Glover--you can save yourself some time by consulting the following list:

The Unofficial Cynthia McKinney Guide to "Racially Motivated" Arrests

1) Jaywalking: A citation for jaywalking would be easy to handle; clearly, it's just a disgraceful attempt to confine a Black woman. Whitey can't handle a Woman of Color running free in the world.

2) Sexual Assault: This charge insidiously harkens back to age-old racist stereotypes about Back sexuality. A Black woman should be passive, think malignant racists.

3) Embezzlement: Racists think that all people should live up to "white standards" of proper fiscal conduct. The disgusting oppressors!

4) Slander: Oh, so the minute a Black woman dares to speak her mind, the white world must slap her with a fine, eh? Obviously, this is another plot to keep a Black lady down.

5) Blackmail: Uh, do we even need to explain?

Russia, Unmasked

Thanks to the release of the captured Iraqi Intelligence Service documents, we now know that the former superpower and our supposed partner in the war on terror instead has allied itself with our enemies -- namely, the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein. The Pentagon confirmed this evening that intelligence gathered during Operation Iraqi Freedom shows clearly that Russia passed vital intelligence to Saddam before and during the war, including our plans for capturing Baghdad:

Russia had a military intelligence unit operating in Iraq up through the 2003 U.S. invasion and fall of Baghdad, a Russian analyst said Friday as the Pentagon reported Moscow fed Saddam Hussein's government with intelligence on the American military.

Iraqi documents released as part of the Pentagon report asserted that the Russians relayed information to Saddam through their ambassador in Baghdad during the opening days of the war in late March and early April 2003, including a crucial time before the ground assault on Baghdad.

Pavel Felgenhauer, a respected independent Moscow-based military analyst, told The Associated Press the report was "quite plausible."

He said a unit affiliated with the Defense Ministry's Main Intelligence Department, known by its abbreviation GRU, was actively working in Iraq at the time of the U.S. invasion. The unit apparently was shut down after the fall of Baghdad.

This betrayal carries some consequences, both for the US-Russian relationship and our current negotiations over the Iranian nuclear program. Moscow deliberately gave Saddam information that, in the hands of a competent military leader, would have resulted in the deaths of many American soldiers and Marines. Vladimir Putin has strong ties to the Russian intelligence community, so this can't be dismissed as a rogue operation, especially given the high profile of the Iraqi situation and the involvement of Putin's diplomatic corps.

Putin allied himself with Saddam and against the US, presumably to protect its commercial interests. However, one cannot discount the motivation Putin has for re-establishing Russia as a power base in the post-Soviet world. He has played at restarting the Great Game for the last several years in Southwest Asia, trying to gain the upper hand over the Anglosphere in the oil-producing regions.

And that brings us to Iran. After finding out that Putin has a habit of supplying tyrannical enemies of the Western nations with military intelligence to use against us, the last country we should trust with Iran's nuclear program is Russia. We can also kiss off the UN; as long as Russia has its veto, that route will lead nowhere. Russia has revealed itself to be a major part of the problem in the Middle East, and we should stop pretending that they are part of the solution.

At least now we know why the CIA and John Negroponte wanted these documents to remain sealed.

Church Sign Smackdown!

Helen in full makeup 

Helen Thomas

The Great Dane of the Washington press corps, has been the voice of honest journalism for over 175 years, and a thorn in side of both Batman and Commissioner Gordon. Her tough, take-no-prisoners style of questioning has often been mistaken for thinly disguised partisan attacks with question marks at the end of them, but she has inspired generations of progressive journalists with her dauntless courage in the face of a fascist administration, and the throes of a crippling mental illness. Since she was diagnosed with severe senile dementia in 1971, she has been unafraid to broach the questions more rational and sane reporters wouldn’t dare to. It’s a miracle she can even remember who she is, let alone find her way to the White House for one of Bush’s Lie Sessions, and she deserves his respect. If the Shrub won’t confess his crimes against humanity, bring our troops home from Iraq, legalize marijuana and step down for the good of America, then he should at least do it for her.

M

Deficit Demagogues

The New York Times seems to have misrepresented the facts in an editorial taking Senate Republicans to task over budget deficits.

Whether this was simply the result of carelessness, or a purposeful misrepresentation is hard to say. Whatever the case, the editorial paints a distorted picture.

Says the Times:

Republicans want voters to believe that the deficit is the result of spending increases alone — not tax cuts. That's false. The swing from a $236 billion budget surplus in 2000 to a $371 billion deficit today is a huge deterioration in the nation's fiscal balance, equal to 5.3 percent of the economy. Of that, fully 62 percent is due to lower tax revenues.

There are two major problems with this analysis.

First, the Times falsely conflates lower tax revenues in FY 2001 with the Bush tax cuts, neglecting the fact that Bush's tax cuts weren't even implemented until calendar year 2002, and also chooses to ignore the fact that other elements having a greater impact on the federal budget's receipts were at play during those two fiscal years.

The period the Times cites includes two budgets under President Clinton (FY 2000 and FY 2001). And as we all know, two major events with financial ramifications occurred in calendar years 2000 and 2001, before the Bush tax cuts were even implemented. One was the bursting of the stock market bubble in 2000 and the other was the 9/11 attack the following year.

In 2000 the stock market bubble burst, which adversely affected the revenue the federal government derived from capital gains taxes. This can be seen in the reduction of the surplus between 2000 and 2001. According to data in the federal budget, the surplus shrank from $236 billion in FY 2000, to $128 billion in FY 2001, or more than $100 billion.

(The scope of the stock market bubble, and its impact on the budget surpluses in the last four years of the Clinton Administration is not to be underestimated. In 1996, the total stock market capitalization in the US was about $4.5 trillion; by 2000, the total stock market capitalization in the US was over $14 trillion. This more than tripling of stock prices in four years was accompanied by growth in earnings of only about 70%. This separation between stock price growth and earnings growth is the definition of a stock market bubble. The $ value of the bubble can be placed in the neighborhood of $5 trillion. If half of those stock gains were realized, about $500 billion in capital gains taxes would have flowed into the US treasury between 1997-2001 -- as a direct result of the stock market bubble and nothing else. This flow does not represent a recurring income stream over time.)

The next year the 9/11 attacks occurred, which cost the economy about $1 trillion.

A large result of these two events was a budget deficit of $158 billion in FY 2002. That represents a two-year swing from surplus to deficit of about $390 billion. The first Bush tax cut went into effect in 2002, with an estimated worth of around $75 billion.

Claiming the 2002 Bush tax cut is responsible for the two-year swing between 2000-2002 is pure hogwash.

Further, after FY 2002 the Times doesn't account for the cost of the Iraq war, which is somewhere around $80-100 billion per year since FY 2003, nor does it account for other defense spending increases. Nor does it account for the across-the-board spending increases in areas like education, Medicare and Medicaid, or homeland security.

(The deficit in FY 2003 was $377 billion; in FY 2004 it was $412 billion; in FY 2005, it was $318 billion.)

How the Times can seriously reconcile these facts with what was written in the editorial is a mystery, known perhaps only to Gail Collins and Paul Krugman.

WHERE ARE THE HEADLINES?

With George Bush's approval ratings at record lows, the media and the Democrats are piling on over the perceived lack of success in Iraq. But the one story they are completely ignoring is that the economy is on fire. By every measure, were are in the middle of an economic boom. The stock market...the housing market...and now the employment market are all booming.

Just how good are things? According to a report issued yesterday by an employment consulting firm, college graduates are facing the best job market since 2001. The CEO of the firm who wrote the report says that were are approaching full employment. In fact, in some industries, there are shortages. Employers are expecting to hire 14.5% more new college graduates this year.

The overall unemployment rate is at 4.8%. That's very low. If a Democratic administration were in power, we would be hearing and seeing stories about how we've never had it so good. But as it stands, with a Republican in the White House, all of that is swept under the rug. Instead, all we hear about is Iraq.

Just another day at the office for the biased liberal media.

FBI WARNED ON 9/11

An interesting little nugget of information worked its way out of the Zacarias Moussaoui's death penalty trial yesterday. An FBI agent testified that after he arrested Moussaoui on August 16, 2001, he told his superiors that the Al-Qaeda was planning something...he told them not once, but 70 times. The FBI failed to conduct an investigation, and the rest is history. So what happened?

August 16, 2001 was almost a month before 9/11. What's worse, on 8/18/01, the agent who testified told his superiors in a memo that he was suspicious that Moussaoui was a terrorist who might be trying to hijack airplanes. The reply from headquarters? Nothing. They yawned and put his memo in File 13. So what was the problem?

The mainstream media will report the headline that the FBI bungled a warning on 9/11. While that's true, you have to read all the way to the end of the story to know why. The agent who testified opened an intelligence investigation on Moussaoui. In order to get a warrant to search Moussaoui's belongings, the agent needed Justice Department approval. There was a barrier in place between criminal and intelligence investigations put there by....drum roll please...the Clinton Justice Department, specifically former Assistant Attorney General and 9/11 Commission member Jamie Gorelick.

It is a tragedy that the FBI did not investigate further. Maybe they could have stopped 9/11 from happening. But make no mistake of where the blame lies...and it's not with the current occupant of the Oval Office. When the final history of 9/11 is written, the lion's share of the blame will be placed squarely on the Clinton administration.

Strawmen Sure Do Get Around

A few days ago, the AP's Jennifer Loven wrote a strange "news" report on George Bush's supposed predilection for strawmen in his speeches. Loven wrote that the usage of the rhetorical device 'some say' indicates a dishonest approach to argument and debate:

When the president starts a sentence with "some say" or offers up what "some in Washington" believe, as he is doing more often these days, a rhetorical retort almost assuredly follows.

The device usually is code for Democrats or other White House opponents. In describing what they advocate, Bush often omits an important nuance or substitutes an extreme stance that bears little resemblance to their actual position.

He typically then says he "strongly disagrees" — conveniently knocking down a straw man of his own making.

Of course, this argument is ludicrous. Often in debates, politicians do not want to get specific about the origin of an argument -- and in the examples Loven cites, the arguments have been made by so many people that one could take an entire day trying to recount the specific citations.

If these are strawmen, then apparently the practice isn't limited to Bush. A few of Loven's colleagues use them as well, as evident in the President's press conference this morning:

Q Good morning, sir. Mindful of the frustrations that many Americans are expressing to you, do you believe you need to make any adjustments in how you run the White House? Many of your senior staffers have been with you from the beginning. There are some in Washington who say ...

Q Some say they are tired and even tone-deaf, even within your party who say that maybe you need some changes. Would you benefit from any changes to your staff? ...

Q You said you listen to members of Congress, and there have been growing calls from some of those members for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld ...

My, those strawmen sure do get around, don't they? Can we look forward to Loven's next exposé to focus on the dishonest rhetoric and demagoguic attitudes of her brethren in the Exempt Media? I would love to read that analysis.

Speaking of the presser, I didn't get much of a chance to listen to it except for a few excerpts. I think Bush did a fine job in a forum he dislikes. He remained firm while sounding (especially on paper) coherent and relaxed with a hostile press, especially the doddering fool, Helen Thomas. I especially liked her allegation that Iraq never did anything to this country, forgetting that Saddam tried to assassinate George H. W. Bush when he visited Kuwait after his presidency, an act that resulted in Bill Clinton ordering a missile assault on Iraqi intelligence assets in Baghdad. Saddam's security forces repeatedly fixed anti-aircraft missiles on our pilots while they enforced and patrolled the no-fly zone, and the first attack on the World Trade Center involved a man who got a Kuwaiti identity during Saddam's occupation of his neighbor.

Bush hit the target when he talked about the difference between a September 10th point of view and a September 12th point of view:

Our foreign policy up to now was to kind of tolerate what appeared to be calm. And underneath the surface was this swelling sense of anxiety and resentment, out of which came this totalitarian movement that is willing to spread its propaganda through death and destruction, to spread its philosophy. Now, some in this country don't -- I can understand -- don't view the enemy that way. I guess they kind of view it as an isolated group of people that occasionally kill. I just don't see it that way. I see them bound by a philosophy with plans and tactics to impose their will on other countries.

The enemy has said that it's just a matter of time before the United States loses its nerve and withdraws from Iraq. That's what they have said. And their objective for driving us out of Iraq is to have a place from which to launch their campaign to overthrow modern governments -- moderate governments -- in the Middle East, as well as to continue attacking places like the United States. Now, maybe some discount those words as kind of meaningless propaganda. I don't, Jim. I take them really seriously. And I think everybody in government should take them seriously and respond accordingly. And so it's -- I've got to continue to speak as clearly as I possibly can about the consequences of success and the consequences of failure, and why I believe we can succeed.

But he made his best point when the issue of the NSA surveillance program arose:

I did notice that nobody from the Democrat Party has actually stood up and called for getting rid of the terrorist surveillance program. You know, if that's what they believe, if people in the party believe that, then they ought to stand up and say it. They ought to stand up and say the tools we're using to protect the American people shouldn't be used. They ought to take their message to the people and say, vote for me, I promise we're not going to have a terrorist surveillance program. That's what they ought to be doing. That's part of what is an open and honest debate.

I did notice that, at one point in time, they didn't think the Patriot Act ought to be reauthorized -- "they" being at least the Minority Leader in the Senate. He openly said, as I understand -- I don't want to misquote him -- something along the lines that, "We killed the Patriot Act." And if that's what the party believes, they ought to go around the country saying we shouldn't give the people on the front line of protecting us the tools necessary to do so.

Many of us have vented our frustration at the lack of direct communication from this White House on the war, the economy, and other issues. This started to change towards the end of last year, but in January the effort seemed to stop. George Bush needs to hold conferences like this more often; he always manages to outperform expectations when he does, and the American people like his direct manner when interacting spontaneously with the press and with audiences for his speeches.

He needs to continue this effort, and not just to make himself more popular. The war effort hangs on his ability to keep the American electorate from panicking and withdrawing their support. Speaking about the issues of the war and his plans for victory is as necessary for that effort as the Humvees he's sending to Iraq for the new Iraqi Army. Without a much more energetic effort of the kind we saw today, Bush will lose this war by default.

Ask Cindy

New Cindy Sheehan Letters!

Cindy Sheehan's New Advice Column, Part II. The Peace Mom answers your questions about life, love, and the Neo-Con agenda.Cindy_shee

Dear Cindy:
My parents don't really pay attention to me. One of my brothers wants me to die (seriously, he even told my parents that), another brother is too occupied to talk to me, and the third one is in the war for oil that's been going on since 9-11. My older brother hurts me a lot. My life sucks, and I write my own songs and they are about misery and pain. I am in the 7th grade and 13, what should I do to have a better family relationship?
Miserable in Montana

Dear Miserable:
I think the first thing you need is a dose of gratitude, you whiny little brat. At least your brothers are still alive to abuse you. My children lost their brother Casey. They would give their spleens to feel even the murderous hatred of an older brother again.

But the most concerning thing I see in your letter is that you know one of your brothers told your parents that he wanted you dead. How do you know this? Are you illegally wire-tapping? If so, I want you dead too.

And, by the way, the "war for oil" was going on long before 9-11. In fact, it dates back to the founding of this heinous country. That was not tea that was dumped into Boston Harbor, missy. Nope, that was Grade A Iraqi crude, stolen by George Washington from the colonial Iraqis with the help of the colonial Zionists. Look it up.

But back to your question-- what should you do to have a better family relationship? I might be going out on a limb, here, but, how about...hmm...GETTING THE HELL OUT OF THERE? I don't need a freaking crystal ball to see you chained to the basement furnace real soon, with mom and dad bringing you microwaved cat food and telling everyone that you've gone to live with your Aunt Gertrude in Syracuse. That's if your folks still find you amusing. If they don't, well, uh-- they haven't recently bought a wood-chipper, have they?
_________________________________

Dear Cindy:
My office recently hired a new employee. He is a 'vegan'. The problem is he is passing gas constantly. I don't know if he's got some medical problem that causes him to have no control of his flatulence. You can tell where he's been in the building because of the smell. I'm to the point that it's making me mad when he comes into my office and leaves it smelling, but I don't want to hang up 'no farting' signs until I know it isn't a disability. Also, I'm not the only one who has noticed this. I feel kind of sorry for the guy, but if he's just rude I'd like to put a stop to it.
Reeling in Reno

Dear Reno:
Ever slept in a tent for a month, in 100 degree heat, with a bunch of unshowered vegans?

I didn't think so.

Next question.
__________________________________________

Dear Cindy:
My frog swallowed a large marble, what should I do? Should I try to make him spit it out? Can he pass it since he swallowed it?
Frog Friend in Fresno

Dear Frog Friend:
When I was in Venezuela, Hugo Chavez told me I was the most beautiful woman he had ever laid eyes on. He called me Evita, which made my travel companion Julie quite angry.

As for your frog, here's what I'd like you to do. Gently massage the frog's stomach, while talking soothingly to him (maybe, "froggie, froggie, froggie," or something like that). Then, when he's relaxed, plunge a pen knife into his gut and remove the marble. Before he dies, show him the marble, and whisper in his little frog ear, "this is what happens when we take what is not ours."

Hope that helps.

SATIRE ALERT !!!

A Special Message from Sen. Edward Kennedy

TedBarring a miracle, Samuel Alito will be confirmed to the Supreme Court of the United States this Tuesday. Roe v. Wade will be repealed, and the clock will effectively be turned back 50 years to a time when women were herded like cattle into back alley abortion clinics and beaten with the King James Bible until they miscarried. Affirmative Action will be scrapped. Blacks will be thrown back into chains. Cub Scouts will go from door to door, spreading their message of hate and intolerance. There will be a bug in every telephone, a nativity scene in every park, and a heterosexual in every Showtime drama series. Dr. King's dream of justice and equality will succomb to George Bush’s Great American Nightmare.

I’ve tried pleading with congressional Republicans. I’ve tried threatening them with a filibuster. I’ve even tried rolling around on the floor of the Senate until I got my way. Unfortunately, the close-minded conservatives who control Congress will simply not respond to reason. Therefore, I have no choice but to appeal to their primitive, apelike instinct for protecting the lives of children over the rights of the mother.

For every vote cast this Tuesday in favor of confirming Judge Alito, I, Senator Edward Kennedy, will eat one small child.

I’m sorry it has come to this, but desperate times call for drastic measures. The children have already been picked at random from elementary and middle school rosters across the country, and the smorgasbord will commence promptly after Tuesday’s vote. Unless senate Republicans join Democrats in their courageous stand against Alito’s confirmation, I’ll be having little Lindsay Allen of Portsmouth, New Hampshire glazed with a light Bernaise sauce and garnished with fresh parsley for dinner that very evening. Wednesday’s breakfast menu will include a Denver-style omelette prepared with Colorado fifth-grader Jeremy Stevens, and for lunch I’ll be flying to Pennsylvania for a Philly Cheese Steak ala Christy Caldwell. Young Kyoshi Matsuri of San Francisco, I have a gallon of wasabi with your name on it for Thursday, and then it’s off to Hawaii for an Alana Hokuikekai luau.

I assure you that I take no pleasure from performing this terrible task. I have several wonderful grandchildren whom I love dearly, but I wouldn’t hesitate to toss ‘em into the deep fryer and serve them up with a side of coleslaw to protect a woman’s right to choose. Thankfully, none of their names were drawn, but I might do it anyway just to prove I mean business. When Clarence Thomas was confirmed in 1991, I ate an entire girl’s softball team. Ever try to pass a catcher’s mitt through your colon? It’s not a pretty picture, but it illustrates the lengths I will go to save our democracy from raving extremists like Samuel Alito.

If the Taliban-wing of the Republican Party is as “pro-life” as they claim to be, then they will vote their conscience this Tuesday. If not, they’ll have no one to blame for little Tina Draper of Portland, Oregon’s flambé fate but themselves.

Thank you for your time, and thank you, Dickybird, for the opportunity to use your little corner of the Blogodome as a venue for this important message.

As promised to the folks in the UK--here is the Corportate shot taken around Christmas----and I know --I know I'm fat, but I am working out. 

Teddy phoned it in from the beach and Lt. Kerry phoned it in from Davos. Too Funny! 

Mary Jo Kopeckne could not be reached for comment

The Massachussetts Comedy Duo Call For Filibuster

Like a couple of bad comedians who remain clueless about their timing, the Senators from Massachussetts teamed together to call for a filibuster even while two more Democrats announced their support for Samuel Alito, one of whom scolded the senior member of the comedy team for conducting an "outrage and a disgrace" in the Judiciary Committee hearings:

Leading Democrat Senators John Kerry and Ted Kennedy said they would try to block Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito by preventing a vote on him with a filibuster.

Former presidential candidate Kerry announced from Switzerland that he wanted to block President George W. Bush's conservative nominee with the stalling tactic to prevent "an ideological coup" on the high court.

"Judge Alito will take America backward, especially when it comes to civil rights and discrimination laws," Kerry said is a statement.

Kennedy, Kerry's fellow Massachusetts senator, also called for a filibuster on Alito when the Senate is called to vote, probably early next week.

"We owe it to future generations of Americans to oppose this nomination. If Judge Alito is confirmed ... the progress of half a century on the basic rights of all Americans is likely to be rolled back."

We can speculate where Kennedy may have been when he made this statement; perhaps he went for one last night at the Owl Club, a males-only organization to which he's contributed a C-note a month for the last 40+ years, or perhaps at the family compound in the oh-so-inclusive retreat of Martha's Vineyard. We don't need to speculate with Kerry, who was so enthusiastic about fighting Alito's confirmation that he dialed in his filibuster plea from Davos, Switzerland -- where Eason Jordan spent last January slandering American troops. (Apparently, Davos is the place to go when issuing character assassinations.)

Unfortunately for both of the Massachussetts Senators, the numbers game has already played itself out. Three Democrats now plan to vote for confirmation -- Robert Byrd, Bob Nelson, and Tim Johnson -- while at least two of their caucus have already warned against attempting to block the vote (Mary Landrieu and Dianne Feinstein). Even with Jeffords on board for a filibuster, that leaves only 40 Democrats, and it takes 41 to keep debate open on the Senate floor.

Did Kerry or Kennedy take math in college? Or did they just have someone else take the tests for them?

People expect hyperventilation and bloviation from Kennedy, which winds up rather Shakespearian in its effect -- full of sound and fury, signifying nothing, because Kennedy has no real influence and no more higher ambitions than simply clinging to his Senate sinecure until his last breath. Kerry, on the other hand, still suffers from delusions of being the front-runner for the 2008 presidential race. Does he think that maligning Alito's character and issuing a call for a filibuster while hanging out on the Swiss slopes, thousands of miles away from the fight, makes him look presidential? Or does it just make him look like the accidentally wealthy dilettante that he has become?

The two should take this act out on the road. It would be sure to get laughs from everyone who understands that they're serious.

YOU HAVE TWO COWS

DEMOCRATIC You have two cows. Your neighbor has none. You feel guilty for being successful. Barbara Streisand sings for you.

REPUBLICANISM You have two cows. Your neighbor has none. So?

SOCIALIST You have two cows. The government takes one and gives it to your neighbor. You form a cooperative to tell him how to manage his cow.

COMMUNIST You have two cows. The government seizes both and provides you with milk. You wait in line for hours to get it. It is expensive and sour.

CAPITALISM, AMERICAN STYLE You have two cows. You sell one, buy a bull, and build a herd of cows.

BUREAUCRACY, AMERICAN STYLE You have two cows. Under the new farm program the government pays you to shoot one, milk the other, and then pours the milk down the drain.

AMERICAN CORPORATION You have two cows. You sell one, lease it back to yourself and do an IPO on the 2nd one. You force the two cows to produce the milk of four cows. You are surprised when one cow drops dead. You spin an announcement to the analysts stating you have downsized and are reducing expenses. Your stock goes up.

FRENCH CORPORATION You have two cows. You go on strike because you want three cows. You go to lunch and drink wine. Life is good.

JAPANESE CORPORATION You have two cows. You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce twenty times the milk. They learn to travel on unbelievably crowded trains. Most are at the top of their class at cow school.

GERMAN CORPORATION You have two cows. You engineer them so they are all blond, drink lots of beer, give excellent quality milk, and run a hundred miles an hour. Unfortunately they also demand 13 weeks of vacation per year.

ITALIAN CORPORATION You have two cows but you don't know where they are. While ambling around, you see a beautiful woman. You break for lunch. Life is good.

RUSSIAN CORPORATION You have two cows. You have some vodka. You count them and learn you have five cows. You have some more vodka. You count them again and learn you have 42 cows. The Mafia shows up and takes over however many cows you really have.

TALIBAN CORPORATION You have all the cows in Afghanistan, which are two. You don't milk them because you cannot touch any creature's private parts. You get a $40 million grant from the US government to find alternatives to milk production but use the money to buy weapons.

IRAQI CORPORATION You have two cows. They go into hiding. They send radio tapes of their mooing.

POLISH CORPORATION You have two bulls. Employees are regularly maimed and killed attempting to milk them.

BELGIAN CORPORATION You have one cow. The cow is schizophrenic. Sometimes the cow thinks he's French, other times he's Flemish. The Flemish cow won't share with the French cow. The French cow wants control of the Flemish cow's milk. The cow asks permission to be cut in half. The cow dies happy.

FLORIDA CORPORATION You have a black cow and a brown cow. Everyone votes for the best looking one. Some of the people who actually like the brown one best accidentally vote for the black one. Some people vote for both. Some people vote for neither. Some people can't figure out how to vote at all. Finally, a bunch of guys from out-of-state tell you which one you think is the best-looking cow.

CALIFORNIA CORPORATION You have millions of cows. They make real California cheese. Only five speak English. Most are illegals. Arnold likes the ones with the big udders

New Orleans Cows: You have two cows. They're both made of chocolate and need life preservers.

Taliban cows: You have two cows. Both are covered head to toe in a burka and are fearful of making milk for fear of being 'tipped.'

Iranian cows: There are no Iranian cows. If there are Iranian cows, they're being used for peaceful purposes. If they're not being used for peaceful purposes, they're being used as per our right as a sovereign right. And as our sovereign right, we intend to use the cows on you at our earliest possible convenience.

Liberal University Think Tank
You have two cows. You spend all of your time discussing 'the nature of cowness' and conclude that a cow is a 'construct' of the patriarchal and racist society that oppresses us all. While participating in the 'discourse' you neglected to feed your cows and both died. You blame George W. Bush.