From “The Stranger” we have Neal telling us who should shut up, and why. A great read:
http://www.thestranger.com/2004-05-13/feature5.html

The Army Times thinks its time for a change:

“This was not just a failure of leadership at the local command level. This was a failure that ran straight to the top. Accountability here is essential — even if that means relieving top leaders from duty in a time of war.”
http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2903288.php

Just one reason the uniformed services are a little peeved? The Pentagon is trying to preserve the administration’s charade by giving only one medal for both Afghanistan and Iraq. Seems they’re not two wars, but one big “Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT for short):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16071-2004May10.html

A bill ordering the Department of Defense to create separate campaign medals for Iraq and Afghanistan is slated to pass the Senate on Tuesday.

Finally, a cheery product endorsement from Ronald Reagon:
http://www.whitehouse.org/kids/reagan-chesterfield.asp

1. You hear a lot about the gay agenda (or the Homosexual Agenda as right

wing conservatives refer to it) in political talk. If you ever
wondered what the hell they were talking about read on:

6:30 am Gym
8:00 am Breakfast (egg whites & mimosas)
9:00 am Hair Appointment
10:00 am Shopping
12:00 pm Brunch
2:00 pm

1. Assume complete control of the Canadian and American federal,  state/provincial and local governments, as well as all other  forms of world government;
2. Destroy all healthy marriages;
3. Replace all school counselors K-12 with agents from Colombian  and Jamaican drug cartels;
4. Bulldoze all houses of worship;
5. Secure control of the Internet and all mass media;
6. Round up all right-wingers, register them, brand them, and forbid them from having sex, getting married or adopting children

2:30 pm Facial, manicure, & pedicure
4:00 pm Cocktails
6:00 pm Light dinner
8:00 pm Theatre
10:30 pm Dancing and cocktails

Every once in a while, I find myself going to Taco Bell for lunch. When I was working in Racine, a couple of years ago, I went to the Taco Bell down the street, and ordered my usual lunch order, three tacos and milk.

Now I have gotten very used to the counter clerk responding to this order with “Are you sure you wouldn’t like the value meal?”

I would then explain that I don’t want the value meal (I guess it costs less when you drink soda), because it generally cost from 10 to 25 cents more than ordering the items separately.

To my shock, the counter clerk looks at me, and completely sincerely says “But it’s only a little bit more.”

I guess it’s kind of the same thing when Elaine Chao, discussing the administration’s new rules on overtime said, “Our intent is always to strengthen overtime protections… We do not expect that many people will lose their overtime.”

I guess that makes sense, in a Taco Bell kind of way.
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Take a look at this fun and entertaining package:

http://www.stickergiant.com/page/sg/dubya

-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

For those of you laboring under the delusion that W is engaged, check out what Sidney Blumenthal has to say about it:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/041604B.shtml

-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Lastly, as you probably know, I am a computer geek. What you may not know is that I use computer systems based on so-called Open Source, or free, software. The operating system I use, instead of Windows or Mac OS, is called Linux, of which there are several versions.

I was intrigued to learn the other day that some enterprising group has developed Ashcroft Proof Linux:
http://ashcroftproof.com

This is a “secure” operating system, impervious to the prying eyes of others, whomever’s they may be. Interestingly enough, the next major release will be based upon a package called SE-Linux (security enhanced linux) which was developed by the NSA:
http://www.nsa.gov/selinux/

One hand hides what the other is seeking! You gotta love it!

This from the New York Post’s Page Six
FRUMPY billionaire Warren Buffett is being urged by friends to let
the boys from “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy” give him a much-needed
makeover. Buffett confirmed to us that a female friend had suggested
him as a candidate to a Bravo bigwig. Buffett is infamous for wearing
worn-down clothes, the same tie many days in a row, and lunching
every day at the same greasy spoon in his hometown of Omaha, Neb. As
for actually consenting to appear on the swishy show, Buffett says
he’s never seen it, and that he only watches news, sports and “The
Sopranos.”

And this from the New York State legislature…
“Marriage For None: Deborah Glick proposal would establish civil unions
as only option for gays, straights”
http://www.gaycitynews.com/gcn_314/marriagefornone.html
http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/18416.htm

Have a nice holiday weekend!

My friend Andy sent this to me, and I thought it was worth forwarding.
-nic

Laura Schlessinger is a national radio personality (a k a Dr. Laura)
who dispenses advice to people who call in to her talk show. On her
radio show recently, she said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, she
believes homosexuality is an abomination, according to Leviticus
18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following
response is an open letter to Dr. Laura, penned by a U.S. resident.
It was posted on the Internet.

—————————————

Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s
Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that
knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend
the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that
Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination … End of
debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other
elements of God’s Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male
and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A
friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not
Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned
in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a
fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is
in her period of menstrual uncleanliness – Lev.15: 19-24. The problem
is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it
creates a pleasing odor for the Lord – Lev.1:9. The problem is, my
neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite
them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath.
Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally
obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is
an abomination – Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than
homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this? Are there
‘degrees’ of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if
I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading
glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some
wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the
hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by
Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig
makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two
different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing
garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester
blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really
necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town
together to stone them? (Lev.24:10-16). Couldn’t we just burn them to
death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep
with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy
considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can
help. Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and
unchanging.
Your adoring fan, Don

This first piece is so strange that you would think it was an April
Fools joke (hint, it isn’t):
http://www.iraqcoalition.org/pressreleases/20040401_optimist.html

Ever wonder who crafts that optimistic message from Iraq? They aren’t
exactly a non-partisan group:
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/special_packages/iraq/8355466.htm

An interesting poll on V.P. prospects:
http://www.abqjournal.com/elex/158992elex04-01-04.htm

While I’m sure that most of us have heard enough speculation of a
Kerry/McCain ticket, here is some more kindling for the fire (or is
that pyre…).

Maverick McCain rips GOP (Noelle Straub, Boston Herald):
http://news.bostonherald.com/national/view.bg?articleid=1611

Kerry’s veep choice Gut-check time (Mark Shields, CNN):
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/29/kerry.vp/index.html

And I think we should have a pool: How long does it take for the
commerce department to announce (quietly) that the 308,000 new jobs in
march number is an over-statement??? Whoever guesses closest gets a
Bush/Cheney-04 bumper sticker.

My buddy Andy sent these and I just had a laugh riot!

White House Props Department

Drink Your Kool-Aid

This morning in NPR’s Morning Edition, Renee Montagne spoke with Peter
Sprigg, director of the Center for Marriage and Family Studies at the
Family Research Council. What he said I found deeply offensive. You
can find their discussion here:
http://www.npr.org/rundowns/segment.php?wfId=1791280

My letter to NPR follows.

Cheers,
-nic

Dear NPR,

In the words of Walt Kelly’s Pogo, “We have met the enemy and he is us!”
That is the message I take away from Peter Sprigg’s (of the Family
Research Council, Center for Marriage and Family Studies) comments on
Morning Edition (March 25, 2004) regarding the current controversy over
marriage rights.

In his comments, Mr Sprigg tells us that same-sex marriage would be just
the latest affront in a continuing assault on marriage “over the last
fifty years” as we depart from marriage’s traditional role of promoting
and protecting procreation. He claims that the trend of single parent
households, childless couples and now same-sex marriages are eroding
“natural marriage.”

By the time my wife and I got married we had each decided not to have
children. We chose to get married for many reasons, but we never thought
of ourselves as eroding a cherished institution by doing so. Apparently,
though, we are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Not too long ago a man and woman living together without the benefit
of the bonds of marriage were “living in sin.” Now, by the logic of
Mr Sprigg, our decision to get married threatens to destroy the very
institution that we have chosen to celebrate. What is a childless couple
to do? We are damned if we do and damned if we don’t.

Mr Sprigg would have us believe that the institution of marriage
is something which survived, unchanged, from some long ago time up ’til
fifty years ago, when it came under sudden attack by an immoral society.
Nothing could be further from the truth.

Unless he would have us revert to the not so distant past of arranged
marriages which predated the evolution of marriage as an expression of
romantic love, a development only two hundred and fifty years old, he
should accept that the institution is not immutable. Like any other
aspect of human existence it changes!

I recently sent a series of calls to action to friends and relatives
regarding a state constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage,
civil union and domestic partnership. I used a time worn rhetorical
tool — rather than accepting the title its proponents had chosen, “The
Affirmation of Marriage Act,” I referred to it as the “Anti-marriage Act.”
When I did this I felt that it truly was an anti-marriage proposal,
now Mr. Sprigg reveals just how accurate I was.

Now that the anti-marriage forces have placed my wife in their sights, and
not just my gay and lesbian friends, I am even more committed to fighting
to see that all citizens are afforded this most essential of rights.

On 23 Mar, Sarah wrote:

You know, it occurs to me that if a President sets his agenda in his “first 100 days,” as one Bush ad claims, then the claims of Richard Clarke and Paul O’Neill are pretty telling.

Do I smell a response ad brewing…

=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+

An interesting bit of back-and-forth is happening vis-a-vis the Bush administration’s bizarre attempt to paint the Clinton White House as unresponsive to terrorism, while simultaneously claiming to have
continued the same robust policy that administration had put in place.

This schizophrenia has been a recurrent theme since 9/11, as the Bushies cannot seem to make up their minds whether to attack the Clintonistas as laying a red carpet for al Qaeda or not.

For example, White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett, last night on PBS’s NewsHour said Bush

…also did another important step and that was to keep Dick Clarke and his counter intelligence team in place for the very reason of having the continuity, institutional knowledge necessary to make sure that there was no effort to drop the ball in the middle of a transition. That’s highly unlikely to happen in an administration to keep such a large organization intact in the White House.

And yet V.P. Cheney yesterday said

The fact is, what the President did not want to do is to have an ineffective response with respect to al Qaeda. And we felt that up until that point that much of what had been done vis-a-vis al Qaeda had been totally ineffective: some cruise missiles fired at some training camps in Afghanistan that basically didn’t hit anything. And it made the U.S. look weak and ineffective. And he wanted a far more effective policy for trying to deal with that. And that process was in motion throughout the spring.

Richard Cohen, in today’s Washington Post writes:

Back in 2002 … Vice President Cheney’s chief aide,Lewis “Scooter” Libby … in a New Yorker interview … listed terrorist attacks on U.S. or allied interests going back to 1993 and concluded that America had shown only weakness in response. “The Americans don’t have the stomach to defend themselves,” he quoted an imaginary Osama bin Laden as saying. “They won’t take casualties to defend their interests. They are morally weak.”

Yet this morning on “Good Morning America” Richard Clarke went on the offensive against his critics:

In the Reagan Administration, 300 Americans died in Lebanon and there was no retaliation. In the Bush I Administration, almost 300 Americas died on Pan Am 103 and no retaliation. Yet for this much smaller threat, we had done a great deal.

So the debate rages on as to who has the biggest cahones, and we have yet to learn just what effect any of this is having on the electorate.

This promises to be a very interesting election year.