U.S. Blamed for Koran Harm in WTC Collapse

http://www.scrappleface.com/MT/archives/002206.html

10 reasons not to kill Bush

Oregon Daily Emerald - University of Oregon news and sports - 10 reasons not to kill Bush:
http://www.dailyemerald.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/05/25/4294332ae6059?in_archive=1

This story was printed from Oregon Daily Emerald.Site URL: http://www.dailyemerald.com.

10 reasons not to kill Bush

Jennifer McBride
Columnist
May 25, 2005

Recently in Georgia, the president gave a speech only to have someone chuck a hand grenade at him. Lucky for all, the blast cap did not explode. Though originally thought to be a dud, the FBI later revealed the weapon was far from safe.

I can't possibly guess the assassin's reasoning, but I've heard enough people on campus proclaiming their hatred of George W. Bush to know that some wouldn't have shed many tears. And that's a shame.

If the assassin were looking for a way to hurt America, blowing up the president would be a good idea. Bush's martyrdom would put the last nail in the coffin of the liberal agenda. So, for those Bush-haters out there, here are 10 reasons you should stop praying for an assassinated G.W.B.:

1) Killing the president immediately generates sympathy for his cause. If the president died tomorrow, there would be no question that all of his nominees for the judicial branch would make it through the Senate.

2) A dead President Bush leaves a live Dick Cheney in charge. Need I say more?

3) The Pakistani political situation is drastically fragile. Should President Bush die, Musharraf's brutal, mostly secular dictatorship probably will be replaced by a brutal, religiously fundamental dictatorship, reducing the United States' chances of bringing in Osama bin Laden to nil.

4) Any criticisms of the administration will be regarded as more unpatriotic than ever. In the next election, you could expect to see Democratic primary candidates proclaiming that their Republican counterparts aren't "fit to follow in President Bush's footsteps."

5) Killing President Bush could spur another spate of international invasions, with or without U.N. approval. The U.S. military cannot deal with invading another country without further hollowing our ability to defend ourselves and respond to threats from other countries, such as a nuclear North Korea.

6) The news cycle would be justly co-opted. With the media so focused on one story, there wouldn't be time to examine important issues such as the government suppression in Uzbekistan or Egyptian election tampering. In fact, all foreign news that didn't directly affect the assassination would probably grind to a halt.

7) President Bush's status as a martyr would leave the electorate more polarized than ever, especially if liberals were seen as publicly irreverent to President Bush's memory. It would be a little different if natural selection decreed death-by-snacking, but toasting an assassin's success leaves a decidedly bitter taste in the national mouth.

8) Jeb Bush's popularity would skyrocket. He would undoubtedly win the Republican nomination and then the election in 2008. With the Supreme Court full of near-zombies, I would prefer a different man to pick the people who are going to strangle us with laws.

9) Killing George Bush won't end any of the policies people disagree with. An assassination would merely strengthen our resolve to stay the course in Iraq, keep troops in Saudi Arabia, support our Israeli allies, etc. Policies don't die just because the president does.

10) Slaying President Bush is simply immoral. Anyone who advocates purposefully killing someone defenseless (and a democratically elected leader, no less) is clearly value-challenged. I don't understand the logical contortions some people must go through to be anti-death penalty yet pro-assassination.

In all seriousness, I don't hate President Bush. I dislike a lot of his administration's choices, but I think he's a good man doing a difficult job. As a leader, you're always going to be hated. I am too often shocked by the vitriolic repulsion many people feel for our leader and America in general, especially because the loathing is often poorly informed. I've met people on this campus who see America as the worst human rights abuser in the world (unlike the angelic paradise of Cambodia) and people who sway liberal not because they actually know anything about issues but because it's popular.

Liberalism has to be more than a college fad or a collection of loudmouths whose idiotic comments stir headlines. The rabid dislike some people feel for a man they've never even met makes me ashamed to be a Democrat.

jennifermcbride@dailyemerald.com

Guantanamo detainee’s ‘serious’ complaint: ‘The guard took Quran (Koran) from me and gave it back’

Free Frank Warner: Guantanamo detainee’s ‘serious’ complaint: ‘The guard took Quran (Koran) from me and gave it back?’: http://frankwarner.typepad.com/free_frank_warner/2005/05/guantanamo_deta.html

Guantanamo detainee’s ‘serious’ complaint: ‘The guard took Quran (Koran) from me and gave it back’

Here is a summary of notes from a March 28, 2003, FBI interview with a detainee at Guantanamo. It’s from documents the ACLU obtained with a Freedom of Information request.

The detainee’s name has been deleted – that is, redacted. His complaint about his guard’s handling of a Quran was presented to higher level officers as a "serious issue."

Notes that "Detainee REDACTED stated that the treatment of the Koran continued to be the reason for his unwillingness to cooperate. REDACTED was asked how the mistreatment of the Koran had taken place. REDACTED stated that the issue continued to be based on what the detainees perceived as the use of the Koran as a weapon. It was taken from them and returned at will, with little consideration for the value which they placed in the book. REDACTED was asked if he had ever seen the Koran mistreated or intentionally mishandled. He had not. REDACTED was asked if he had ever seen the Koran thrown around, tossed on the ground or mistreated in any way. He had not . . . . REDACTED was informed that his case for the proper treatment of the Koran had been taken to higher levels and presented as a serious issue. The effort had been hurt, however, because it had been found that detainees were hiding things within the pages of the Koran. As a result, the guards were required to look through the Koran for their own safety. REDACTED was asked if he could assure camp officials that none of the detainees would ever hide any objects of any kind in their Korans. He stated he could not.

Back to abuses. This Quran "controversy" has devolved into farce. There have been real abuses at the Abu Ghraib, Kandahar, Guantanamo and other prisons. Detainees have been beaten or sexually humiliated. Some have been killed. Investigate these cases, punish the guilty, and tell us clearly what, if anything, has been done to prevent such abuses from happening again.

But get off the Quran thing. Al Qaida’s abuse of the Quran is as old as al Qaida. There is absolutely nothing a Guantanamo prison guard could do to defile that book any more.

Desecration 101 - Or How I Spent A Few Hours And Still Don't Know

http://lifetrek.blogspot.com/2005/05/desecration-101-or-how-i-spent-few.html

More on Newsweek

Zane posts links to some interesting commentary.

With thanks to filkertom...

I am the very model of a right-wing intellectual,
My arguments are pedantic, ill-advised, and ineffectual,
I set up straw men, knock them down, declare myself too smart by half,
And contradict myself at least in every other paragraph;

I take a condescending tone, as if to teach a stubborn child,
I really want to soothe the rabble, keep them docile, keep them mild,
I play at being common man, though strictly of the ruling class,
And can't unravel why I'm called a who-d'you-think-you're-fooling ass.

I dare not ask a question of Dear Leader and his underlings,
They've promised that at some point I'll receive some minor Mordor rings,
So, to the hem of power I cling, and let things go to Heck I will,
In short, the very model of a right-wing intellectual!

---

Chimpy.
Oh, better far to be a jerk
And complain my job is such hard work,
Than talk of problems that we've shared,
And act as if I really cared.
Away to the mundane world go you,
Where having three jobs is better than two;
But I’ll do better than Dad, the wimp,
And live and die a Pirate Chimp.

For I am a Pirate Chimp!
A lying, cheating, bone-stupid imp,
That's me, the Pirate Chimp!

I am a Pirate Chimp!
Chorus.
You are!
Hurrah for our Pirate Chimp!
Chimpy.
A cheerleader, not a commie symp,
That's me, the Pirate Chimp.
Chorus.
He is!
Hurrah for our Pirate Chimp!
Chimpy & Chorus.
Hurrah for the/our Pirate Chimp!

Chimpy.
When I give a speech, my handlers quake,
Ready to correct the least mistake.
I break a few more laws, it’s true,
Than a legal monarch ought to do;
But the problem with democracy
Is it impedes aristocracy,
My circle must stay well-to-do,
How else can we keep from being like you?

For I am a Pirate Chimp!
And for food and health care I won't scrimp,
That's me, the Pirate Chimp!

I am a Pirate Chimp!
Chorus.
You are!
Hurrah for the Pirate Chimp!
Chimpy.
Now bend over and take it till I'm limp,
'Cause I'm the Pirate Chimp.
Chorus.
He is!
Hurrah for our Pirate Chimp!
Chimpy & Chorus.
Hurrah for the/our Pirate Chimp!

Is Murdoch influencing television ratings systems?

Koran desecration reported long before Newsweek

But Gonzo won't believe it because of the source I'm quoting.

His loss.

The Idealists are Leaving the Loonies

Touching, heartfelt op-ed piece. You have to read through the subhead which is inflammatory to see what the author is saying.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/05/22/INGUNCQHKJ1.DTL

Newsweek Reports Star Wars Episode III Script Flushed Down Toilet

From www.imao.us. Very funny (although the original story blows chunks).

Newsweek Reports Star Wars Episode III Script Flushed Down Toilet - Widespread Riots Ensue

According to perfectly reliable news magazine Newsweek's anonymous source, pathetic basement-dwelling geeks around the world are pouring into the streets to protest the deliberate flushing of a Star Wars Episode III script.

One geeky loser was quoted as saying "To desecrate one copy of the Sacred Script is to desecrate the entire Star Wars mythos! They will pay with blood"

Other nerds expressed their outrage by rioting at a nearby Star Trek convention, shouting such slogans as "Star Wars is the one true Space Saga!", "There is no Star but Star Wars!", "Death to Federation Infidels", and "Jedi Akbar!" while pummeling helpless Trekkies with plastic light sabers.

George Lucas, speaking from his Millenium-Falcon-shaped mansion in Beverly Hills, declared his outrage over the incident. "My wrath will descend as flame from the Heavens to smite the unbelievers! They will be made to suffer the tortures of insipid CGI characters! I will bring forth Episodes VII, VIII, and IX to roast their stomachs in Hell! "Jar-Jar Returns"! "Bride of Jar-Jar"! "Son of Jar-Jar"! There will be a Jar-Jar Holiday Special starring Harvey Korman and Bea Arthur! Yousa will worships da Jar-Jar!"

John Welch, who was accused of doing the flushing in the Newsweek article, responded with a confused look upon hearing the news. "What I said was that Episode III was a turd of a movie and OUGHT to be flushed down the toilet. Man, those dweebs can't get ANYTHING right. No wonder they've never kissed a non-inflatable girl."

Eyman out to destroy home rule?

Andrew Villeneuve thinks so.

Should the people of Aberdeen, Bellingham or Spokane have the opportunity to deny Seattleites the right to tax themselves for the services and infrastructure they want?

Most Washingtonians would probably say no.

Newsweek Told Koran Flush Story Was 'Slam Dunk'

http://www.scrappleface.com/MT/archives/002195.html

Bush Derangement Syndrome

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/charleskrauthammer/ck20031205.shtml

Can Florida’s Election Officials Ignore the Law?

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and a coalition of national groups concerned with voting integrity filed a friend-of-the-court brief in a seminal e-voting case brought by Florida Congressman Robert Wexler and others. Florida law requires manual recounts in close races. Rep. Wexler's case argues that when Florida election officials purchased touchscreen voting machines that do not leave a paper trail, they prevented true manual recounts and violated this law. The Congressman also argues that the touchscreen voting machines violate federal constitutional law.

Read more here

Read the court brief here

Poodle to Head CIA

Dick Cheney's Poodle to Head CIA:
http://www.unconfirmedsources.com/?itemid=700

Grin: Missing Clinton?

It doesn't matter what party you are this is absolutely hilarious.
(well good anyway)


A black comedian was on a TV show and this is part of the dialog. He said that he misses Bill Clinton.

"Yep, that's right - I miss Bill Clinton! He was the closest thing we ever got to having a black man as President.

Number 1- He played the sax.
Number 2- He smoked weed.
Number 3-He had his way with ugly white women.

Even now, look at him... his wife works, and he don't. And, he gets a check from the government every month.


Manufacturers announced today that they will be stocking shelves this week with "Clinton Soup," in honor of one of the nations' most distinguished men. It consists primarily of a weenie in hot water.

Chrysler Corporation is adding a new car to its line to honor Bill.
The Dodge Drafter will be in production in later this year.

When asked what he thought about foreign affairs, Clinton replied "I don't know, I never had one."

American Indians nicknamed Bill Clinton "Walking Eagle" because he is so full of crap he can't fly.

Clinton lacked only three things to become one of finest leaders:
integrity, vision, wisdom.

Clinton was doing the work of three men: Larry, Curly and Moe.

The Clinton revised judicial oath: "I solemnly swear to tell the truth as I know it, the whole truth as I believe it to be, and nothing but what I think you need to know."

Clinton will be recorded in history as the only President to do Hanky Panky between Bushes.

Holy Crap! Red Alert!

The Senate snuck in a National ID Card scheme (called Real ID) into the war appropriations bill and it passed!

This should piss off civil libertarians (hell, ANY libertarians), traditional conservatives, and free-range Democrats. This is BAD BAD.

http://www.unrealid.com/

I can see the cops now..."Your papers. Now". Sheesh.

The Parliament of Whores

UPDATED: Fixed broken link to the source.

To borrow a phrase from P.J.O'Rourke on Congress...but I apply it to the State Legislature which passed a few stupid bills recently. Attribution: www.soundpolitics.com

HB 1031, which provides "long-term funding for problem gambling". This program to treat problem gambling is funded by a tax on gambling, so in order for the program to raise more money, more people will have to be encouraged to spend more money gambling.

HB 1314 "Creating the domestic violence prevention account". Increases the fees for filing divorce papers in order to fund programs to prevent domestic violence. But if we want to help prevent domestic violence, shouldn't we make it easier to get out of a marriage to a violent spouse, and not more expensive? Hear, hear.

Boy-o-Boy is Gregoire Popular

ROFL....third from the BOTTOM in popularity. Gee, wonder why? Could be that she's a two-faced b*tch who ignored her campaign promises the minute she was elected (was she elected? Methinks not).

Here's the link for you unbelievers:

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=46e4332f-5897-4060-be1b-2358565680b0

More on Goldberg and His Recent Column

Much as you folks seem to revile him, he makes some good points. Here's his latest column from townhall.com. There is a lot of history and nuances he's trying to cover here and a primary point he barely touches on is that FDR trusted Stalin, much to Churchill's annoyance. So FDR was willing to go along with whatever claptrap justification Stalin had for Eastern Europe's fate. Was that wrong? One would think so from today's perspective but I'm sure that the main goal then was to keep the Soviets happy for now and deal with the consequences later.

The basic Russian political outlook was paranoia (remember folks, I have 34 semester hours in Sovietology). I am sure that Stalin saw Eastern Europe as a buffer zone against future aggression from the West or a re-armed Germany. They weren't trying to create a Soviet empire as much as creating friendly client states.

Of course, I don't expect a response from any of you lefties as it would require knowledge and historical insight and those are rare in your daily soundbites from Kos and MM.

Why shouldn't we apologize for Yalta?
Jonah Goldberg
May 11, 2005

This week, while touring the remnants of the former Soviet Union on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the defeat of Nazi Germany, President Bush gave perhaps the greatest diplomatic performance of his career, balancing a host of moral and strategic interests simultaneously. In the Baltic republics, he recognized that the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe was "one of the greatest wrongs in history." In Russia he carefully avoided alienating the Russians too much. In Georgia he literally danced a jig and championed liberty for the entire world.

But the most exciting part of the president's trip, for some of us, was when he reignited one of the great debates of the 20th century: Did America betray Eastern Europe at the end of the Cold War? This question, symbolized by the debate over the Yalta conference, which codified the division of Europe, has preoccupied the left and right for nearly 50 years. Indeed, by revisiting the issue this week, Bush showed the consistency of his foreign policy since he took office. In his first European address - in 2001, before 9/11 - Bush declared "No more Munichs, no more Yaltas!"

Some quick background. The conference took place in the Crimean city of Yalta in February 1945. The war in Europe was winding down and America didn't yet have the atomic bomb. At the conference, America and Britain conceded to a host of Stalin's demands, including accepting the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe and the forced repatriation of all soldiers, refugees and other escapees of the Soviet Gulag.

This second set of concessions is usually left out of the debate over Yalta because it was so indefensible. The Allies understood that they were sentencing hundreds of thousands of men (and quite a few women and children) to death and misery. Many of these refugees went to extraordinary lengths to end the war in British and American custody only to be forcibly - i.e., at gunpoint - returned to the Soviets for liquidation. Many killed themselves and their families rather than go back. Shame on us all.

As for the more famous controversy over conceding Eastern Europe to the Soviets. This is a tougher nut to crack, and hyperbole has been common to all sides of the debate. One of the many layers to the controversy is the fact that Alger Hiss, the proven Communist spy - once beloved by liberals everywhere - was an advisor to FDR at the conference. How much of a role he played remains hotly debated. But only fools and Communist sympathizers would today disagree with the statement that he played too much of a role.

Defenders of FDR, who always had a soft spot for Stalin - "I like old Joe" - and defenders of Churchill, who understood completely what a barbarian Stalin was, claim that there was nothing the West could do. And besides, by consigning millions of East Europeans to slavery for generations we received in return a promise from Stalin to help defeat Japan in the pacific - eventually. Of course, Hiroshima made that chit worthless.

For example, Arthur Schlesinger Jr., the revered liberal historian who has always considered it
part of his job description to carry more water than Gunga Din for Democratic presidents, responded to Bush's speech with the usual haughty incredulity. "The American president is under the delusion that tougher diplomacy might have preserved the freedom of small East European nations. He forgets the presence of the Red Army. No conceivable diplomacy could have saved Eastern Europe from Soviet occupation."

Jacob Heilbrunn was more splenetic in the Los Angeles Times, caterwauling about Bush's peddling of "right-wing mythology" and the "Ann Coulter school of history."

The history is debatable. Schlesinger's emphasis on the word "diplomacy" is revealing. He writes, "It was the deployment of armies, not negotiating concessions, that caused the division of Europe." But the concessions at Yalta were possible because America chose to let Stalin occupy Eastern Europe. If, for example, General Patton had had his way, much of the occupation wouldn't have been a fait accompli. Schlesinger & Co. argue that Yalta was a concession to the necessities of reality. I wonder if FDR's defenders think tougher diplomacy is similarly pointless regarding, say, the Israeli occupation of the West Bank? Israel has it now, so that should settle the issue.

It's ironic: Liberals celebrated Bill Clinton's numerous apologies for America's Realpolitik "mistakes" during the Cold War as a sign of great statesmanship. But when an apology reflects poorly on the mistake that basically launched the Cold War, they bang their spoons on their highchairs about any attempt to tarnish FDR's godhood.

This raises the larger moral point. After a war to end one evil empire, we signed a piece of paper accepting the expansion of another evil empire. And it happened at Yalta.

We Like Ike

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."

----President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1952

Ballmer Reverses Course for Microsoft

Surely there are those out there that will again claim that MS caved to special interests, this time from the left. IMHO, management has been very contemplative on the subject and you can see in his missives that Steve's really struggling with right and wrong on this.

Here's a quote from his latest email:

"After looking at the question from all sides, I’ve concluded that diversity in the workplace is such an important issue for our business that it should be included in our legislative agenda. Since our beginning nearly 30 years ago, Microsoft has had a strong business interest in recruiting and retaining the best and brightest and most diverse workforce possible. I’m proud of Microsoft’s commitment to non-discrimination in our internal policies and benefits, but our policies can’t cover the range of housing, education, financial and similar services that our people and their partners and families need. Therefore, it’s appropriate for the company to support legislation that will promote and protect diversity in the workplace."

And, frankly, I'm torn, too.

I am very proud of Microsoft's corporate policies of non-discrimination and extremely liberal (in the classical sense) policies for same-sex partners. I think our policies are a model for other companies and institutions.

On the other hand, is it right for the company to materially support legislation that forces private companies to enact similar policies? The Reverend Ken Hutcherson (whom I fundamentally disagree with), at the center of this bruhaha, makes a good point when he says (paraphrased) "I don't demand you enact my beliefs; why should you force yours on me?".

The right thing, in a civil society, is to treat every member of that society the exact same, where possible, to be given the same considerations and opportunities. I am very wary of any legislation that demands equal rights in a punititve way.

(UPDATE -- OpinionJournal opinion on the subject that cuts to the chase) Posted here but can also be found on www.opinionjournal.com\best

Rand + La Rochefoucauld = Ballmer

Ayn Rand claimed that selfishness was a virtue, while Francois de La Rochefoucauld observed that "hypocrisy is an homage that vice renders to virtue." That would mean that someone who claims insincerely to be acting in his own self-interest is a Randian Rochefoucauldian. Such a man is Steve Ballmer, CEO of Microsoft.

Ballmer sent an e-mail to employees Friday in which he explained his decision to take a position in favor of proposed legislation to outlaw discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in Washington state, where Microsoft has its headquarters. The company had originally said it would take no position on the legislation; the change of heart came after pro-gay pressure groups accused it of caving in to pressure from antigay pressure groups. But Ballmer described it as a business decision:

After looking at the question from all sides, I've concluded that diversity in the workplace is such an important issue for our business that it should be included in our legislative agenda. Since our beginning nearly 30 years ago, Microsoft has had a strong business interest in recruiting and retaining the best and brightest and most diverse workforce possible.

The trouble with this argument is that it makes no sense. Microsoft already has a nondiscrimination policy and a commitment to "diversity"; it doesn't need a law to compel it to adopt same. The effect of such a law would be to compel Microsoft's competitors to do so.

True, it's common for big companies to favor government regulation for anticompetitive reasons: The smaller you are, the more costly it is to comply. But a policy of nondiscrimination costs nothing and actually makes good business sense. A company that bases hiring decisions on irrelevant characteristics is depriving itself of the best talent available. That means it's actually in Microsoft's interest if its competitors do discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, for that leaves Microsoft with a broader pool of prospective employees from which to draw.

Ballmer seems to anticipate this objection. He explains in his e-mail that his concern isn't really about the software industry's hiring practices at all:

I'm proud of Microsoft's commitment to non-discrimination in our internal policies and benefits, but our policies can't cover the range of housing, education, financial and similar services that our people and their partners and families need. Therefore, it's appropriate for the company to support legislation that will promote and protect diversity in the workplace.

Now this makes sense. The bill Microsoft supports would make Washington state a more gay-friendly place to live, thus making it easier for the company to attract talented gay employees who might otherwise prefer to work in other states. But the next sentence in the Ballmer memo gives the lie to this:

Accordingly, Microsoft will continue to join other leading companies in supporting federal legislation that would prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation--adding sexual orientation to the existing law that already covers race, sex, national origin, religion, age and disability.

If discrimination against homosexuals were eliminated nationwide, Microsoft would lose whatever competitive advantage it gains either from its own nondiscrimination policy or from the law it is now urging Washington state to pass. One suspects, then, that the real reason Ballmer is urging these laws is simply that he thinks it is the right thing to do. If so, why not forthrightly stand on principle rather than claim implausibly to be acting selfishly?

Hillary in '08? "No Way", says Joe Klein

Joe Klein, author of Primary Colors and a former deep insider with the Clintons, talks about Hillary's chances in 2008. Very insightful.

http://www.time.com/time/columnist/klein/article/0,9565,1059000,00.html

Blair hit by new leak of secret war plan - Britain - Times Online

Just don't call Bush a Liar...

Blair hit by new leak of secret war plan - Britain - Times Online

Update: Some 88 members of Congress have a question or two for Mr. Bush.

Democrats "excommunicated" from church in NC

And no, Gonzo, I'm not going to link directly to the news stories just so I don't have to listen to you discount it because of the site it's on.

Good Thing Texas Banned Slutty Cheerleaders!

I had no idea there was a link between cheerleading and terrorism! This is from www.imao.us, one of the funniest blogs out there:

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT SLUTTY CHEERLEADERS AND TERRORISM

Q. Dear sir, how are slutty cheerleaders and terrorism related?
A. Thank you for asking, Mr. Asker-of-Frequent-Questions. There are a number of relations. For one, Islamic radicals are prudes themselves. They could use it as more of an excuse for attacking us:

"Look at the Americans and their slutty cheerleaders! I am so outraged I will blow them up! Now leave me alone for a moment so I can watch more of these cheerleaders and be... enraged."

Q. Why should we care what terrorists think of how our cheerleaders are dressed? They suck!
A. Valid point. We'll never appease terrorists by trying to not offend their twisted sensibilities. The problem of slutty cheerleaders in relation to terrorism could be much more insidious, though.

Q. Insidious how?
A. Now, I've never read the Koran, seen a Koran, am sure I'm spelling "Koran" correctly, or ever met anyone who had read a Koran, but I still consider myself an authority on the issue since I have a vivid imagination. Now, some have read parts of the Koran to mean that, if they "martyr" themselves, they'll get 72 virgins. Other have read it as 72 raisins. Isn't it just as easy that someone will read it as "72 sluts"? Then sluts will become acceptable to Islamists, and there will be...
Q. Oh, dear!
A. Slutty terrorism! That's right, we'll have terrorist women dressed completely inappropriately - and probably using foul language, too!

"It was horrible! There was an explosion and blood and bodies everywhere! If that wasn't enough to frighten my little girl, you should have seen what the terrorists are wearing! I don't want my child exposed to that!"
"What does (expletive deleted) mean?"
"As soon as we get home, little girl, I'm going to wash your mouth out with soap and get you some trauma counseling!"

Q. So what do we do?
A. First off, we make sure our children don't dress like those cheerleaders in Texas, and...

Q. Sorry to interrupt, but do you have pictures of those cheerleaders?
A. No, not on me.

Q. Rats... Well, carry on.
A. As I was saying, I know I wouldn't want my theoretical daughter of the future wearing such outfits.

ME: I don't care how much being a part of the cheerleading squad means to you; you're not going out in public in such an outfit!
MY THEORETICAL TEENAGE DAUGHTER OF THE FUTURE: Hey, this is what girls my age wear in these days of flying cars, holographic computers, random cybernetic ninja attacks and what not.
ME: I don't care! As your father, I'm putting my foot down on this issue! Someone has to!
DAUGHTER: Well, you are wise and your mere presence does demand respect. Thus, I will obey your wishes. Also, I wouldn't want to affect your chances of being elected Emperor of the Universe.
ME: Yes, we would not want that.

Q. You do have a vivid imagination.
A. Which is why I'm an expert on the Koran.

Q. I believe it's spelled "Qur'an."
A. And I believe I don't give a rat's pinky toe.

Q. Anyway, back to the subject at hand, haven't you just illustrated that slutty cheerleaders is more of a parental issue?
A. No, with it's relation to terrorism, it's a federal issue... perhaps an international one! We must have our cheerleaders dress more modestly or it will spell disaster!

Q. This is starting to seem like some ploy from one of you theocons to force your values on everyone.
A. Have you considered that maybe the "theocons" are right? What if the rapture is coming any day now?
Q. We would be screwed!
A. Quite possibly! But what if God is like, "Well, I was going to judge you all individually, but I never thought there would be so many of you by now with all the plagues and disasters I sent forth - damn medical science - so instead I'm just going to judge countries as a whole. America, you seem pretty cool, so I'm going to send you all to... Wait! What are those cheerleaders in Texas wearing?"
Q. So, slutty cheerleaders might not only mean worse terrorism, but could damn our eternal souls!
A. Exactly!

Q. But isn't it Jesus who does the judging?
A. Hey, which one of us is the Biblical scholar here?

Q. Neither, since it's the same person writing the "questions" and the "answers."
A. Good point.

Q. Of course it is. You made it.
A. I do surprise myself sometimes, though.

Q. Anyway, is there a point to all this?
A. Yes, there is. See, America has been in a moral decline in many areas, with slutty cheerleaders being just one of the symptoms. Remember back during the Nixon presidency when at least political scandals could be discussed with the kids?

Q. No, because neither you nor I were alive then.
A. Well, remember reading about it in U.S. History class?

Q. Sure. Go on.
A. Then, what did we have during the Clinton years? How could you explain that to kids?

CHILD: What did the president do wrong?
DAD: He lied.
CHILD: About what?
DAD: About... uh... adult things.
CHILD: Like things you and mommy would do?
DAD: I wish!

Q. You know, you keep skirting the edge of decency yourself.
A. Stop being such a prude.

Q. Again, you had a point...
A. Yes. America is the strongest nation, and we need a strong nation to stand up to the evils of terrorism. The reason America is so strong is that it's unique for a civilized nation. We have easy access to guns, the death penalty, the combination of liberty, capitalism, and can-do attitude I just like to call the American Spirit, and prudishness. And we need to keep all of those to stay a strong nation. You know what's happening to Europe?

Q. No, what?
A. Those secular, immoral fools are dying out, while radical Muslims are moving in. Eventually, the Muslims will be the majorities there, and, as soon as we solve everything in the Middle East, we'll have to deal with tons of new Islamic theocracies in Europe!

Q. What can we do?
A. Give birth to lots of strong, moral, Christian children to combat those threats of the future.

Q. What if I want to have Jewish children?
A. Well, you can do what you want, and lots of Jesus's best friends were Jewish. It's not my job to convert everyone... though, if you don't accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior, you will burn in eternal hell fire. And you know what the worst thing about eternal hell fire is?

Q. I assume either the burning or the eternalness since there is only two aspects to an eternal hell fire.
A. Well, yeah, the worst part of it is one of those two things.

Q. And I guess you could say the other part is the best part of an eternal hell fire.
A. But still not a good thing! That's an important distinction.

Q. You know, with the Islamists, it's believe what I believe or I'll blow you up. With you Christian fundamentalists, it's believe what I believe or eternal hell fire. Can't we have some more positive talking points?
A. Fine. Let's just say that if we make America a more moral place, we'll all be happier - hell fire or no hell fire.

Q. Can I still watch the new episodes of Family Guy?
A. Hells yeah! I know I am.

Q. Have you been doing drugs?
A. No, but I do feel dizzy.

V-E Day + 60: Putin in Serious Denial

Vladimir Putin criticizes the Allied bombing of Dresden in WW II.

Highlights are.....

Putin: “It’s incomprehensible to me to this day why Dresden was destroyed. There was no military reason for it.”

Putin...said the civilian population in Germany had suffered greatly during the war but said it was not the Soviets’ fault.

Denying that Moscow was to blame for Germany’s post-war division, Putin said Soviet leaders had worked hard “to preserve the integrity and unity of Germany” after the war. “But some of our allies unfortunately took the opposite position.”

“It wasn’t the Soviet Union that started the war.”

Say what?!? I don't even know where to begin....(but I'll try)

Dresden was a dreadful mistake and regarding Putin's statement about military reasons, he is correct. However, "incomprehensible" is a little over-the-top when you consider Soviet behavior in East Prussia and other areas in Germany where civilians were indiscriminately killed, raped, and robbed by Soviet forces. Not the Soviets fault?!?

The post-war division of Germany was actually proposed at the Yalta Conference by none other than Josef Stalin, who argued vociferously that Germany must be dismembered for the Soviet Union's future security. The Western Allies went along with it, as Stalin had a sort-of moral imperative there - having been invaded - but Churchill had misgivings on the idea.

'It wasn't the Soviet Union that started the war'

In the very, very strictist sense, that is - in terms of direct German-Soviet conflict - this is correct. However....

in 1939, the Soviets occupied eastern Poland and parts of Romania under the Molotov Pact with Germany, and immediately rounded up and massacred 30,000 Polish officers in the Katyn forest.

Also in 1939, the Soviet Union invaded Finland in what became known as The Winter War.

In 1940, annexed the Baltic countries under secret terms of the aforementioned Molotov Pact.

Took about a 100,000 prisoners at Stalingrad in 1943; only 5-6,000 survived the war.

In 1940, considered a surprise attack on Germany for the spring of '41. Had several operations plans to attack Germany in 1943 or later as well.

Declared war on Japan a few weeks before the end of the war to pursue territorial gains. Hundreds of thousands of civilians in the Manchuria/Manchukuo area killed or missing.

The chutzpah of Putin!

A Pissed-Off Electorate Strikes Back

Lots of rumblings about the WA Legislatures "emergency" suspension of I-601 to get a simple majority vote for the new gas tax.

Here's a grass-roots drive for a new initiative: http://www.nonewgastax.com/

The Washington Farm Bureau (and others) challenge the "emergency" suspension of 601: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002262111_farmbureau04m.html

And Tim Eyman has a fire-breathing editorial in the Seattle Times today regarding "legislative arrogance" ... and, ya know...he's 100% right this time: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2002261748_timeyman04.html

Rush in his own words

Quite instructive. :-)

Now they need my medical records, my private medical records to find out if I've committed a crime called doctor shopping? . . . But the question is this: Why would any of us want such records made public, even if they prove our innocence? It's not up to me to prove my innocence by giving up my right to privacy.

Rush Limbaugh

Radio Show

December 22, 2003

I warned you about this ever-broadening interpretation of the so-called right to privacy. It’s not a ‘right’ specifically enumerated in the Constitution or Bill of Rights.

Rush Limbaugh

Rush Limbaugh.com

August 22nd, 2003