You're right, the Fairness Doctrine is crap.

I read a blog recently that denounced the Fairness Doctrine as being crap. You know, you're right. I mean, listen to this BS:

"Until the mid-1980s, a Federal Communications Commission policy that required broadcasters to provide time for opposing viewpoints any time they broadcast an opinion supporting one side of a controversial issue." (MarketConscious.com)

You're right, that's so bad. Think of the possibilities--without the Fairness Doctrine, a person who had a hugely successful fund raising campaign could put their image out much more than their opposing candidate, thus increasing their chances of election. Put your face everywhere, your name everywhere, put out dozens of smear ads against your opponent--he or she doesn't stand a chance! And isn't that what America is all about?

No.

The basis for electing our leaders shouldn't be money or notoriety. It should be ideas and policy. Think about it--if you were asked the question, "Would you rather elect a leader based on their ideas or based on how much money they have?" it wouldn't be a question. You would elect a leader based on whether or not you agreed with their ideas. And there is only one way to figure out if a candidate agrees with your ideas: exposure to those ideas. There are two ways to accomplish this exposure.

1. The Fairness Doctrine

2. Reform campaign spending, including but not limited to spending caps, federal and state funding equally for both candidates, and campaign spending transparency.

People who oppose the Fairness Doctrine complain about freedom of the press. Wah wah wah, we're a conservative network and we don't want to run liberal ideas. Wah wah wah. Freedom of the press doesn't really apply here. The first amendment to the constitution says this:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Note that is says abridging the freedom of the press. That means that, say, the Republicans can't take control of congress and prevent the press from printing stories with a liberal bias. Even though they did. But they didn't do it with an actual law, and they can't. That doesn't mean that they can't pass a law requiring the media to cover certain things, though. It means that they can't force the media not to cover something. That is what freedom of the press is about.

You jerks.

In case you haven't figured it out, I'm all in favor of the Fairness Doctrine. Why wouldn't you be? What does it hurt anybody to be able to be a little more open minded, to have to listen to both sides of an argument? My God--it might even help. Unless you know that you don't have any facts or reason supporting your argument--then I could see why you might not be in favor of the F.D. Good luck with that. We Americans may be a little more self-involved than politically involved, but as is evident by the last midterm election and Bush's approval rating, you can't run willy-nilly and expect us not to notice.

Dick Cheney, Meet the Constitution.

Seriously? Every day that passes brings something that takes me closer to the brink of total insanity.

Dick Cheney announced recently that, because his office is not part of the executive branch of government, the laws that apply to the executive branch don't apply to him. Uh, you know, when I was in high school, I didn't take advanced U.S. History; I couldn't fit it into my schedule between A.P Chem and Calculus. I took regular ol' U.S. History with the dumb kids and the fuckups and the slackers. We read every single goddamn word of the U.S. Constitution in that class, and if you asked anybody from that class who wasn't stoned at the time, I imagine they could answer in a multiple choice question which branch Cheney was elected to. (Probably not open-ended, this was high school.)

Even though Article II, Section I of the constitution says this:

"The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected . . . "

Cheney believes that his job falls under both branches because Article I, Section III says this:

"The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided."

Yes, okay, Dick, you preside over the Senate. But you don't have a stupid vote! How can you consider yourself to be part of the lawmaking process without a vote? You only get to be the decider in the Senate if there's a gridlock; otherwise, I'm sure that the Senate is more than happy to tell you to go fuck yourself.

(Can I just interject here and say that this "fourth branch" idea is really tickling me? Not because I don't think it's not utterly fucking ridiculous, but that they seem to have based Cheney's entire right to secrecy on a Taco Bell marketing plan--the Fourthbranch, cheesy melty crunchy and spicy!)

So why is Cheney jumping over to the judicial branch to interpret the Constitution? (My God, now he spans THREE branches!) Because he wants to keep stuff secret from Americans. What kind of stuff? I don't know, it's a secret. I do know that one of his aides is currently being prosecuted for perjury and obstruction, and another one was convicted of more of the same in 2006. Could Cheney be far behind? God, let's hope not; he and W have gotten away with far too much for far too long. That is a great explanation for the secrecy, though--he's probably trying to prolong being put in jail as long as possible. By the way, this doesn't look suspicious at all, Dick. My aides keep getting arrested, so I'm going to hide all of my papers as being 'confidential' and make up a really fucking stupid excuse for why I don't have to show them. That doesn't have guilt written all over it, no sir.

Someone do me a favor and send this asshole to prison where he belongs.

What the democrats need to do.

Okay, obviously the Iraq war has turned into a bit of--shall we say, a quagmire? I know the Democrats all want us to pull out of Iraq, but at this point, we have a responsibility to them, as well as to our own futures. This may or may not be (we know it is) the work of an incredibly selfish, unfeeling, irresponsible man who duped us into supporting a personal war; however, we're in this now and the damage can't be undone.

So, Democrats, quit promising to pull out our troops, because what if you can't right away? Then Democrats lose face in the eyes of the American people, which is not good, since the Republican party has proven its untrustworthiness already. Plus, I like Democrats--I like democracy. I like freedom and equality. I don't want you guys to dig a hole that you can't get out of when you get elected.

Just try being honest. No spin, no promises you'll have to break later. Tell us that the war is a disaster. Tell us that there's no easy way out, but that you promise that you will work to find one instead of serving your own interests. Tell us what you would do first--what are the first priorities? Obviously, it's difficult to tell at home. We hear a truckload of news stories, and we don't really know what to believe anymore. Be honest. Be open. And above all, do what we want--don't forget who's running the show here. (That goes double for you, George W Fucko.)

We're already too alienated by an administration who doesn't give a shit about us. It's time to be real with the American people: we're like a woman who's been jilted by her lover, our trust must be earned back.

Bake Sales for Body Armor: The Assault on Reason

I just finished Al Gore's new book, The Assault on Reason. By 'just finished,' I mean I finished it a few days ago. I will say two things about Al Gore here and now: he is a brilliant man, and he has balls of steel.

The book, despite its depth, is not a difficult read; I like this, because it means more people will read it. (Also, because I have a very short attention span when it comes to dense books. I'm not stupid, I just can't pay attention long enough to cut through jargon, pretentiousness, and verbosity.) Al Gore is very clear about the problems facing American democracy today; he's also very clear about the root of the problems facing America today. He lays a lot of problems at the feet of the Republican party. Get this, though--he does it without petty name-calling and snide shrewishness. Are you taking notes, Mr. Hannity and Mr. O'Reilly? Mr. Gore lays out the facts as they are and draws conclusions based on evidence: leave the drama with your mama.

Mr. Gore details several problems in the book, one of which is the lack of communication between the government and the people. He says that television, the current most popular advertising medium, is a one-way communication device--which explains why people in Washington never hear me screaming when I watch C-Span. This undercuts the very foundation of democracy, to which two-way communication is crucial. As we've all seen in our lives, a relationship with a communication problem heads straight into the toilet, which is right about where we are now. The solution? The Internet--the great equalizer. Here, we are free to speak our minds, as long as the internet doesn't come under control of some faceless conglomerate who can control everything. (That means you, Time Warner.) We shall rebuild democracy in the blogosphere, huzzah!

Another problem is money--money, it's always money. We all know that Bush and Cheney are not running a government, they're running a racket. Mr. Gore has enough Washington connections and political knowledge to point out exactly how they're doing it. No, Mr. President, Iraq has no connections to Al Qaeda! What do you mean, look again? Wait, what are you doing with that steak knife? Wait!

With money there is always power, coupled together like a freak show; between the love of money and the love of power, our government is as corrupt as its been in a long time. I'm thinking worse than Nixon. To generously interpret and paraphrase a point from the book, you know the government doesn't give a damn about you when you have to hold bake sales for body armor.

If you don't believe what I say, go to the source--read the book. I tell you now that if you don't walk away from this book practically weeping (or actually weeping, I know I got choked up) for what America should be, then I better not ever hear you call yourself a patriot, because you don't know what America's all about. You can also take that yellow ribbon magnet off of your Hummer.

Lord, don't they help themselves, y'all.

We've all heard the song "Fortunate Son" by CCR. It's still a great political statement, still relevant, still true. I'm thinking in particular of this line:

Some folks are born silver spoon in hand; Lord, don't they help themselves.

This explains exactly what I've been saying for a long time: George W Bush doesn't understand typical Americans because he's never been one.

Compare George W Bush to my favorite president, Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton was born to the wife of a traveling salesman--if you remember Willy Loman or Dan's father on Roseanne, you know that traveling salesmen aren't known for being particularly wealthy. He grew up poor in Arkansas; his mother remarried a man, Roger Clinton Sr., and Bill remembers him as being an abusive gambler. He had to work hard to get where he wanted to go, just like the rest of us did. When he made policy for America, he made it for Americans.

Now, hold that up next to George Bush's early life. Bush comes from money. Bush's father comes from money. Who was around to teach GWB what it was like to be a real American, to have to scrap and struggle to get ahead in the world? This translates to his policymaking. George W Bush doesn't look out for the middle-to-lower class because he can't fathom what life is like for us. He's never had to struggle for anything in his life, including winning an election. He pretends to be a Godly person because he thinks that Americans love God more than anything, but when pressed, members of his 'bible boot camp' that he supposedly did can't say anything about the books they studied 'intensely.' Either they're not very bright or they didn't study it very thoroughly. My guess is that they went quail hunting instead.

George W Bush may be our president, but he works for the American people. He needs to make policies that make sense to us, that help us, that are in our favor and not his own. And please, write to your Republican congressmen and tell them this--they are just as much at fault, as are the Democrats for not being stronger and not being more outspoken about the problems in Washington. We're all in this together, and working together, we can fix it.

Homeland Security Spending Bill: Democrats just want to spend all your money.

Republicans and Democrats are in a deadlock over the Homeland Security spending bill that is being debated in the house right now. I was watching C-Span earlier, and the Republicans announced that the Democrats had "capitulated" and "surrendered" to their demands that the earmarks be made transparent. They slighted the Democrats for running on a platform of transparency and then creating 'secret slush funds' for spending that wouldn't be revealed until the vote.

The Democrats, on the other hand, say that they have received in excess of 30,000 requests for earmarked spending. The Washington Post says this:

"To give himself [David R Obey] and committee staff members more time to screen them, he plans to drop the earmarks into the bills when they move to the House-Senate conference committees before the August break, giving members and the public a month to review and question them."

A month, eh? Does this sound like 'secret slush funds' to you? Does this sound like non-transparency to you? To me, it sounds like someone putting a wrench in the gears to prevent progress.

This kind of political discourse makes me ill. The Democrats are trying to make room in the budget for more border troops, education, health care, and more personnel; the Bush administration calls this spending "irresponsible and excessive" (Yahoo! News). The White House has promised to veto any budget that goes over Bush's spending cap; President Bush has never before vetoed a budget. Could this be because Congress is no longer cowed to his special interests? By the way, "irresponsible and excessive" spending could have been cut before the projected $4 trillion deficit.

With 30,000 requests for earmarked spending and a budget that will certainly be vetoed if it goes over Bush's request, wouldn't you want to review all of the options and narrow them down to be within the spending limit? Let's say you have $500 to spend on Christmas gifts and 50 people to buy for. At $10 a present, you might have to re-examine your list and determine who just gets a Christmas card--unless you want to surprise your husband, wife, or parents with a gift basket from the dollar store. Aww, a badly painted ceramic monkey and some paper clips--you shouldn't have, honey. Really.

Do the Democrats just want to spend all your money? No! That money is being put toward things that we need. We do have to realize as Americans, however, that we can either keep our money or we can have government funding for education, health care, social security, environmental agencies, food inspection and regulation, and the myriad of other things we have come to depend on our government to provide. It's not cheap to run a country. Add a tax cut to an expensive war, and we have ourselves a 4 trillion dollar deficit. Was anybody particularly unhappy paying taxes under Clinton? Or were we proud of our country, proud of our surplus, proud of the goodwill from other nations, and happy that we could all work toward a greater prosperity?

I was proud. I was happy. I was hopeful. And I think the rest of America was, too. Think back to the good times, and think about now. We do need to cut the 'irresponsible and excessive' spending in Washington; we can start by pressing our Republican leaders to work with Democrats for the good of Americans and stop wasting money on wars we can't win.

Bush is too old and too rich to care about 'non-renewable'--but what about us?

In 2003, Michael Dobbs of the Washington Post wrote this:

"Halliburton, the company formerly headed by Vice President Cheney, has won contracts worth more than $1.7 billion under Operation Iraqi Freedom and stands to make hundreds of millions more dollars under a no-bid contract awarded by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, according to newly available documents.

The size and scope of the government contracts awarded to Halliburton in connection with the war in Iraq are significantly greater than was previously disclosed and demonstrate the U.S. military's increasing reliance on for-profit corporations to run its logistical operations. Independent experts estimate that as much as one-third of the monthly $3.9 billion cost of keeping U.S. troops in Iraq is going to independent contractors."

Are you shitting me? Halliburton--and other private sector organizations--is funding our military? If you have never undertaken a project which requires an investor, you may know that, often, with investors comes some relinquishment of control. We see it here--if, say, Halliburton contributes to the war effort in bucks, they get rewarded in kind with secured contracts solely for them to recoup their expenses. This mixing of the government and the private sector bothers me intensely. It puts the needs of the few over the needs of the many, and it also grants control to unelected corporate CEOs that the American people haven't approved to help control any aspect of our government. In capitalism, we would have a choice on how to spend our money, and here, we do not.

Something else that pisses me off--this week, our Democrat-controlled congress is beginning the push for moving to renewable and cleaner fuels. Okay, that part doesn't piss me off. I'm all for it. Even though it is going to take time to push through all of the whining interest groups who don't want to cut their multi-billion dollar profits for the good of the environment, I'm glad the good fight has begun. Then, Edmund L. Andrews wrote this in the New York Times:

"The clash between rival industry agendas was apparent on Monday. Fifteen trade associations and companies from the food industry warned senators in a letter that heavy government subsidies for ethanol would push up prices for corn and other feed, and thus the cost of food."

Gah!

If we farmed in a sustainable way, there would be no need to use so damn much corn and feed for the industrial torture farms where animals are currently being raised in squalid conditions. We could then redirect the corn to making ethanol, and I could start eating meat again! The current raising of livestock for food is incredibly, incredibly inhumane (read Eric Schlosser's Fast Food Nation for details, you'll never look at meat the same--or head over to PETA's website, I hate PETA but video evidence doesn't usually lie); if we could fix that and have everyone raising livestock in a sustainable way, the price of free range organic meat would have to go down because of the boost in supply. Who knows, in a perfect world, it may eliminate or reduce meat waste, as well--if the supply is somewhat leaner, you probably won't see "Manager's Special" stickers nearly as often! The meat would also be a lot healthier, with no antibiotics, less disease--oh bliss!

I could have a steak!

Listen, folks: a lot of decisions are made in congress due to special interest groups lobbying their cases. Unfortunately, lobbying their cases often doesn't coincide with lobbying what's right for Americans. Unfortunately, it also includes a lot of special interest groups paying millions to disabuse Americans of the notion that our environment is in danger; they pay millions to promote the idea that non-renewable resources are, despite the fact that they're finite and contribute to our climate crisis, the way to go because alternatives just won't work; they pay millions to keep our government officials in their pockets and to deceive us about their real motives, which of course, always, come down to profit margins. Are we going to let these people dupe us into believing that "science" and "facts" are really just left-wing propaganda to keep them from making money? I sincerely hope not.

When you see a scientific report on TV, consider where the payroll for that study came from. Did it come from independent scientists, or from a major company whose interests are directly connected to the outcome of that 'study'? Therein lies the truth.

The dependence on oil is making America a fuel junkie of epic proportions, especially since we now consume so much fuel with our SUVs, Hummers, constant commutes and driving. We're flying more, we're traveling more, and we're using more energy in general than we ever have before. It's time to start turning to natural resources, because we can replant corn every year, but once our oil is gone, it is gone. Let's make the transition while we still have enough oil to carry us through the changeover to sustainable energy. It just makes so damn much sense.

Sorry seems to be the hardest word.

It's so obvious, at this point, that the Bush administration has seriously fucked up. They've ruined America's good name, they've stretched thin the goodwill that most of the world felt toward us when Clinton was in office, and they've made the Middle East a safer place for al Qaeda and terrorism. Many would still claim that George W Bush is too stupid to know any better; I say to you that this is not true. I think the stupid thing is an act, at least partially; at the zenith of bad taste, he has actually begun to make fun of himself for being stupid, something that I think is both completely inappropriate as our elected leader and also a very telling clue that he is much more sly than he appears. He's making the 'stupid' image work for him, because when you're stupid, you can get away with a lot more.

So, he knows better. And even though he's stupid, many people in America, Republicans and Democrats alike, have a bad taste in their mouths because of his policies. We know it, and he knows it--so why can't he say he's sorry?

I want to know why it's so fashionable nowadays to let people off of the hook when they've done something illegal or heinous. Why can people go in front of our judicial system, on camera, and tell grievous lies about things that they've done--and get away with it? Why can the Bush administration lie over and over and over again, and nobody does anything about it? George W Bush has gotten up on camera and told the nation outright lies that have been crucial to his policymaking--for example, that there was a connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, that Saddam was gearing up to make nuclear weapons, and that there were, in fact, weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. These fallacies were the basis for us going to war in Iraq, and they are all completely false. Not only that, but I believe that there is enough testimony by experts and former members of the administration to show that Bush was attempting to piece together a picture of Iraq as our enemy, knowingly using misleading and false information. Why isn't President Bush being held accountable for this?

I don't know the legal system well enough to know if he can be impeached or arrested for what he's done. I would hope so; Bill Clinton, one of our greatest presidents, was impeached because he lied about a blowjob so his wife wouldn't know. You would think that someone like Bush, who has taken our great nation and ruined both its economy and its reputation, would be able to legally be held accountable for, I don't know, disregarding many of the laws of our country. Even if that's not possible, even if there isn't enough evidence or witnesses, I want George W. Bush to acknowledge that we know what he did, that it was wrong for him to do, and even if he doesn't mean it, I want him to say he's sorry.

In fact, that's what I want all of the scandalicious members of our government to do. I want them to come forward, cut the bullshit excuses, and say that they're sorry, even if they aren't. That's what we, as the Americans who gave them their jobs in the first place, deserve. The current administration has forgotten the most important part of democracy: they work for us. They are in their offices to serve our public interest. Acts of revolution and rebellion are an extremely common thread throughout humanity (see Wikipedia's list of revolutions and rebellions throughout history, which is not even a complete list), and they're not relegated to third world countries or distant history. This administration has to realize that, after a certain point, we aren't going to take this anymore. So they should step up and apologize, and take what they have coming to them like men.

Bernie Taupin's lyrics are sadly appropriate:

It's sad, so sad

It's a sad, sad situation

And it's getting more and more absurd

It's sad, so sad

Why can't we talk it over

Oh it seems to me that sorry seems to be the hardest word.

What's remaining in Pandora's box.

Before I begin the originally intented blog, I am horrified by a word I just learned. I've been staying away from the media for a long time, since a few years after Bush took office, because they've turned away from real journalism and into political kowtowing for the sake of their ratings. I recently decided to start following more closely again, largely due to the upcoming Presidential race--I may be a Democrat, but I'm not a blind Democrat, and I like to know a little bit about who's running. I have read two articles today about books, Gore's The Assault on Reason and Obama's The Audacity of Hope. In both articles, I came across this word, "wonkish." I've always used the word "wonky," even before it became what is, apparently, a political word; I've always used it, and heard it used by others, to mean "slightly off, or slightly skewed," so I decided to look it up to see how the New York Times was using it. This is the definition that I found in the Urban Dictionary:

"Wonkism, which is the design of policy solutions that are too complex and subtle for the victims -- er, I mean the public, to understand."

This person (the Urban Dictionary is edited by its users) went on to cite two examples--one about former President Bill Clinton and one about former Vice President Al Gore.

Fuck you. And fuck you, New York Times, although you did redeem yourself with this statment: "[Obama's correct definition of 'values' is] hardly what the evangelical polemicists who have hijacked the traditional Republican Party have in mind."

It's not our fault that the current Administrations policy is exceedingly simple. After all, what's hard to understand about policy that leads to total dominance over the entire universe? No matter what the policy, we know its eventual aim: helping Bush & friends circumvent America's legal system in order to get what they want.

Onto the 'real' blog for today.

I'm still reading The Assault On Reason--it's not a book that you can skip through quickly. I was so impressed by Gore's handling of the subject that I wanted to see if other people were reading the book, as well, and if so, how many. I went to the NYTimes bestseller list--and by damn, there it is, at the top of the non-fiction list for the second week of the two weeks it's been on the list. I scrolled down through the list, and my heart started to glow at the number of other books I found on the list: a book about how religion poisons things by an atheist, a book about being environmentally sustainable by a best-selling novelist, a book about Einstein (science! yay!), a book questioning the non-existence of leaders by Lee Iococca, another book about science (yay!), and two books about economics.

It makes me happy that people are concerned enough about America to be both writing and reading about the problems in our society. And after everything was released from Pandora's box, the last emotion left was hope. The fact that so many people are taking an active interest gives me hope that things will turn around after we purge the current administration from the White House.

I hope.

Who is supporting the gays?

I have been reading through CNN's coverage of the presidential candidates on both sides for the past few days. Through the flow charts, line graphs, and .. okay, actually it was just a really easy-to-read, well-organized chart that detailed their respective takes on certain issues: taxes, abortion, social security, immigration, Iraq, and of course, same-sex marriage. Out of all of the Democratic candidates, only two support same-sex marriage--and I don't think either of those two has a snowball's chance in hell of winning. Hillary opposes it, but supports civil unions, but thinks that states should ultimately decide--yeah, Hil, leave it up to individual states so that you don't have to take a stand for your gay constituents. Obama feels the same way. Where are the leaders who will do what is right and stand up for gay rights?

I've never, not ever, heard a compelling argument against gay rights. I've heard variations of the same two or three arguments floating around. One of the arguments is, "If we let gays marry each other, what's next--people marrying dogs or children?" This is one of the most ludicrous arguments I have ever, ever heard. Let me break it down to you: Marriage between a man and a woman, in the eyes of the government, is a contract between two consenting adults. Marrying a child or a dog, in the eyes of the government, would be attempting to enter into a contract with either a minor, who is not old enough to legally enter into a contract, or a dog, who will never be able to legally consent to a contract. To which of these is gay marriage more similar? If you picked the option with two consenting adults, congratulations--you're not a total blathering idiot. What two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom does not affect you whatsoever. It doesn't affect you when Bobby and Mary Jane do it in their bedrooms down the road, and it's the same when Bobbie and Mary Jane do it around the block. It's also completely different from pedophelia and bestiality--by comparing it to that, what you're really saying is, "I don't think it's right because homosexuality is sick." And that's both wrong and ignorant--and, if you don't mind my saying so, sick.

The other arguments usually have to do with God. Here's a news flash: America is not in allegiance with any particular deity. Our founding fathers set it up that way, and so it has been ever since. We're not a Christian nation, and that's not my opinion; it's constitutional, baby. So why do I have to believe what your God says about homosexuality? I don't. And if I don't believe it, then it ceases to be a valid argument. Let's do what we've been doing for centuries and leave God out of politics.

Democrats, I'm surprised at you. Gay, lesbian, transgender, and bisexual people deserve the same rights that every other tax-paying citizen has. We are all born Americans, we have the freedom of religion (which means we can choose a homosexual-friendly religion if we want), we are consenting adults; so who, speaking not as a Christian but as an American, has the right to say that they oppose same-sex marriage? As far as the government is concerned, it shouldn't matter. It's just a contract between two adults. That doesn't mean that the Catholic church is going to have to start performing gay weddings; they have the right to say no as members of the private sector, but as the government, you don't.

It's just not right.

It's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for some Republicans to get into heaven. (Pt. 1)

Where, oh where, to start on this one? (P.S. -- I know Deuteronomy is in the OT and that Jesus didn't really say it on earth, but God is Jesus is the Holy Spirit and they're all part of the same whole.)

How about this:

"There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land." Deuteronomy 15:11

Or this:

"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.' They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?' He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least among you, you did not do for me.'" Matthew 25:41-45

Or maybe this:

"People who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs." 1 Timothy 6:9-10


I haven't been a Christian in years; I received an off-and-on upbringing as a Southern Baptist, largely because my granddaddy was a minister. To this day, I believe that, while he may not be the only way to heaven (if heaven exists), Jesus was still a pretty cool dude. Modest, humble, generous, non-judgmental, slow to anger, all-inclusive, lover of honesty and hater of hypocrisy--he sounds like the kind of friend everyone ought to have. And, he sounds like a liberal.

He says do not store up treasures, God will provide for you. He says that a wealthy man should be kind and generous to his less fortunate brethren. He says that the love of money leads to corruption. He says that he is no better, no more deserving, than the next guy, and that we should all lend a hand to each other.

Sounds like a liberal!

Now, some people might argue that Jesus would be a conservative because he doesn't like gays. To this I say, although Jesus may disapprove of homosexuality (and I'm not a bit convinced of this, but for the sake of argument, I'll make a half-assed, not-really concession), he would never punish a gay man for love. Sex, maybe, but not love. Let's not forget that Jesus hung around with what the Pharisees considered to be the scum of the earth. The people he kept company with were sinners through and through--so, please, make your case about how he welcomes whores and lepers but snubs the gays, please. I'd love to hear it so I can tell you how wrong it is. Jesus loves everyone, even gays.

Someone might argue that Jesus was anti-taxes, and that would make him a conservative. Wrong! Jesus was against the corruption in the taxation system. Did you read the quote above about being openhanded to the poor and needy? That's redistribution of wealth, my friends, to some degree. I don't think Jesus would disapprove of a tax surplus going to health care, social security, and other reforms that help the poor. He's probably aware that, if the government doesn't do it, nobody will.

Speaking of Jesus being anti-corruption, what do you think he would think of invading a sovereign nation to raid their natural resources? Pretty greedy, Bush and Cheney. Jesus is decidedly anti-greed.

Let's all face it: Jesus was a liberal hippie bordering on pinko commie. He was a sandal-wearing, granola-eating, peace-loving liberal liberal liberal.

Which means that either Bush is lying about doing God's will, or God is playing a righteous joke on W. 'Cause I'm pretty sure that God and Jesus are having none of this.

More later.

The L.A. County justice system at work.

Ordinarily, I don't give a shit about celebrities--especially celebrities like Paris Hilton. I judge celebrities the same as I just people I would or would not like to be my friend: on their personality, on their actions. I rarely make friends with 'party girls,' and sometimes, it chaps my ass that I have to see them all over TV instead of the real news.

I find, however, that this latest Paris Hilton story could contain a victory for us all.

You'd have to be living under a rock--or with no access to the media or with no people who have access to the media--not to know that Paris Hilton went to jail. She went to jail for violating probation twice on a 'reckless' (i.e., drunk) driving charge. Let me just stop and say that I've known people who were caught driving drunk and didn't get busted down to 'reckless' driving. Paris pleaded no contest, and she got 30 days' probation and a suspended license. She also was forced into alcohol education (did she have to actually go? I wonder) and fined $1500, which, I imagine, is the equivalent of the rest of us being fined $15. So far, the penalties haven't been very harsh--she can't drive, but she doesn't really work so that isn't a problem; she has to learn about what alcohol does to your body, which she probably needs; and she has to pay what is, for her, a pittance.

Nevertheless, she violated her probation. Twice. With her money, can't she just hire a driver?

So, in a remarkable decision by Superior Court Judge Michael T. Sauer, Paris had to go to jail for breaking the law. And in an unremarkable decision by L.A County Sherriff Lee Baca, she was released from jail, citing undisclosed 'medical reasons.' I rarely watch Fox News Channel, but every now and again, I turn on Hannity and Colmes for a laugh; I was actually interested in the show last night, because they had a 'panel' (of celebrities, but whatever) discussing Paris's fate. One said that a psychologist had visited Paris just before her release, and everyone was speculating that she may have be released due to depression. My fiancee and I had been speculating this too--Bobby said that he heard she wasn't eating or something, and I said that letting her go because she is depressed is fucking bullshit.

Which it is.

Nobody likes going to jail. Nobody. If they did, it wouldn't be jail, it would be a resort--a really cheap one. (No dust ruffle? What kind of place are you running here?) So yeah, expect Paris to get depressed. If she stops eating, give her a glucose I.V. If everyone who stopped eating out of protest were let out of jail, everyone could get out by this precedent.

Yes, I realize she's a 'non-violent offender;' but the non-violence of her offense was luck and the late hour, because nobody was around for her to crash her car into. She was driving drunk and she could have killed someone. It happens all the time. Far too often. She broke the law and she deserves to pay the price. I know plenty of people who have gotten DUIs; some of them still haven't been able to get their driver's licenses back, and they actually have to work for a living.

I read this in the CNN story today:

The decision by Sheriff Lee Baca to move Hilton chafed prosecutors and Superior Court Judge Michael T. Sauer, who spelled out during sentencing that Hilton was not allowed to serve house detention.

That was a good move--after all, I'm sure Paris lives in a multi-million dollar paradise. This isn't like Cherish, she doesn't have to be cooped up in a tiny apartment with a TV and the pidgeons for company. I have heard that she was also, as part of her 'house arrest,' able to work--'work,' for Paris Hilton, consists of going to parties because people pay her. I hope to Christ that I just heard incorrectly.

Look, I'm a working-class Jane, and yes, part of me does resent Paris's lifestyle. Not necessarily because of money envy (there's a certain part of me that will never pay more than $60 for a pair of shoes, ever), but because she flaunts her wealth and acts like she is above the law. She may be a rich, young, American heiress, but she's not--and will never be--above the law.

Paris needs to go back to jail and serve her time like an American. Then the American public will prevail over the ridiculous, non-newsworthy, self-destructive behavior that we are forced to watch without end. And hopefully, Paris will learn a lesson before she kills someone--herself or someone else.

Gore not a hypocrite? *Gasp*

I will freely admit that I used to think Al Gore was a bit of a nutcase. Invented the internet? I had the same mental image that the rest of uninformed Americans had, the one Al Franken lays out in Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: Al Gore, sitting up late at night, furiously writing code for the internet. My God, I thought, how could a man so stupidly make a claim like that?

It turns out I'm the stupid one. Not only was Al Gore relentlessly misquoted, he really did help create the internet--through funding.

The latest Gore "hypocrisy" says that, despite his global-warming crusade, he pays a lot more in electric bills than the 'liberal' media thinks is proper. I was disheartened by this, until I read an article about Gore on the Time magazine website that says:

"The anti-Gore crowd zinged him recently because his electricity bill last August was 10 times the local average. The Gores pay extra to get 100% of their power from renewable sources, and their zealous retrofitting [of energy efficient windows, heating and cooling units, and solar panels] will no doubt bring their costs down."

Wow, the 'liberal' media sure got their facts straight the first time.

Why do we still listen to media slander campaigns? They've done everything they can to demonize liberals; and until they recently realized that most Americans don't like George Bush or his current policies, if a Republican scandal came up (like messing around with underage boys), it quietly went away after a short time. I realize that Clinton broke the law when he lied under oath, but at least his infidelity was legal and between two consenting adults. Also, it was heterosexual, a fact that I wouldn't normally bring into play except to point out the glaring hypocrisy of the Republican party.

A quote in the article, "The Last Temptation of Al Gore," bothered me though. It said, "Why else would you write a book like [The Assault on Reason], they say, if you weren't laying down a marker for 2008 [elections]?"

Do people really think that the book was a publicity stunt? Al Gore wrote that book because we needed that book. We needed someone to step up and speak out about what the current administration is doing to keep the American citizens in check. They want us to be cowed so that they can serve their own interests. Don't make any mistake about Bush's policies: he wasn't sent by God, he was sent by the wealthiest Americans to create policy catering to their own needs.

Al Gore, an American citizen, felt that need as strongly as we all do. The right-wing slander brigade keeps trying to villify him, but I believe Al will come out on top. Hopefully, we all will.

And one more thing: Al Gore is not a hypocrite.

The Last Temptation of Al Gore, Time.com.

Heh heh heh.

From CNN.com, regarding the Republican primary debates:

"But on Tuesday night, no [Republican] candidate was running on the legacy of the Bush administration."

Heh.

Primary concerns.

Generally, I adore the primaries. Knowing that, within months, a certain grand old party will be taking as many pot-shots at my beloved Democrats as they can, it's nice to watch them turn inward and harp on each other for awhile. A particularly heartening moment that Al Franken recalls from the 2000 elections: Bush, when asked about a political biography that he was supposedly reading, completely choked and began spouting his usual rhetoric about changing the tone in Washington or whatever the current hot topic was at the time. When asked his next question, John McCain answered it quickly and spent the rest of his time filling in the information that Bush should have learned from the book he'd supposedly just read. Classic.

This upcoming Democratic primary has me very worried, though. I'm not racist and I'm not sexist; I believe that a man or a woman, regardless of race, could do an amazing job as president. I am, however, concerned that we get a Democrat in office as quickly as humanly possible. I am afraid that our forerunners, Clinton and Obama, might hurt our chances. I'm not certain that America is ready for a woman to be president, no matter how badly the Bush administration has fucked up. Obama is a man, and he may be able to make history despite the remaining presence of racism in our country, but I think that Mrs. Clinton would have a very difficult time pulling this election off. For one, she's a chick, which is still worse than being a man in this respect. Secondly, she's seen as being cold and callous, thanks to the Republican slander and lie machine. There are enough people who hate Hillary to make her a risky candidate. There was enough scandal regarding herself and her husband during his administration for the GOP to have more than enough fuel for its hateful, America-hating, selfish, money-grubbing fire. Yes, fire can be all of those things.

Democrats prevailed overall in the last election, but barely. Are we willing to risk it on Hillary? I have no doubt that, if she's anything like her husband, her presidency would create another strong period of time for America; I just doubt that Americans will give her a chance to do the job. We desperately need a Democrat in office now. Just something to think about.

The danger of buzzwords.

I've been reading Al Gore's new book, The Assault on Reason. I really love this book, even though I'm not very far along yet. He speaks of things that I've been waiting, dreaming, wanting desperately for someone to say right out loud for awhile. One thing he speaks of is the clever but dangerous use of buzzwords in politics: terrorist, liberal, libs, patriotism, support our troops (that one makes me want to gag).

Everyone who isn't a conservative is asking the same question these days: since when is it bad to be a liberal? When did America begin hating us? The answer is, of course, that it's not bad and it never has been. Given that, in the last election, the majority of people voted Democrat, one can't even logically say that America hates us. In fact, liberals are looking mighty damn fine right now.

So why is it such a bad thing to be a liberal today? Is it because we're reasonable, sensible people who don't agree with the current administration? My God, what a coup that was. In his new book, Al Gore mentions that there was more press coverage on his inappropriate sighing during his debate with GWB than there was about any of the issues they discussed. As much as I hate to generalize about a party's behavior, I have to say that certain Republicans have turned our free press into a propaganda free-for-all since the middle of Clinton's second term. They took the election away from Gore by making him look like a crybaby because some votes weren't counted correctly and he wanted a recount in the opposing candidate's brother's state--wahhhhhhhhhh, wahhhhh, our democracy is being tampered with, someone is trying to usurp my rightful presidency, I'm telling my Mommy!

If I don't want our troops invading a more or less innocent country, I am unpatriotic. If I don't think it's right to spy on me, to tap my phones, to create long lines at airports and give up all of my privacy, I'm pro-terrorist. If I want the Earth to be a safe place for my children's children, I'm a selfish hippie tree-hugger. If I want to use environmentally safe fuels and natural materials, well, I'm still a tree-hugger. If I want to raise taxes to decrease the deficit, boost the economy, and fund government programs, I'm accused of wanting to tax the poor out of existence. Let me tell you something, honey--I've been poor, I'm still poor, and the Bush tax cuts didn't help me a damn bit. Three hundred bucks spread over a period of a year is about 25 dollars a month--what poor person wouldn't sacrifice $25 or so a month to increase their health care benefits, their child care opportunities, their educational opportunities (didn't we all notice a tuition hike right after Bush's election?), and ensure some sort of retirement so that they don't have to wait tables or scrub floors their entire lives?

This is the effect of buzzwords in politics. Things that all reasonable people would want are made into evil, heinous, fear-provoking issues that get 'talking point'-ed to death on Fox News until they are completely unfeasible. Buzzwords only work if people believe them, though; they also only work if people hear them in the first place. For the sake of America, maybe we should all turn off the news.