Bill Maher tonight!

Bill opened up his latest season by having Michael Moore and Ralph Nader on his program.. I'll say this: Bill seems to have changed a bit -- not quite so liberal.. Not sure why, but it's how I saw it..

There were quite a few barbs being traded between Michael and Representative David Drier (who I guess had more *pressing* engagements for the evening as to why he couldn't *stay* for the remainder of the program....)

Of course Fahrenheit 9/11 was one of the main discussions.. At one point, David was on a rant about how Michael has been doing a disservice to the country.. Michael then asked:

"Have you seen the movie??"

"No," David replied..

An exasperated Michael just buried his head in his hands.. But it clearly illustrates exactly how a very active majority of the people who have NOT seen the movie continue to parade their feelings ABOUT a movie they haven't even SEEN!!

Has anyone else figured out that this is probably one of the major reasons WHY we went to war to begin with????? Because we have an administration who is leading people to believing things that MAY or MAY NOT be real or factual in nature.. Is this really responsible??

Then - David - obviously feeling tired from having to defend himself so much made the mistake of saying that Michael Moore's movie is the equivalent of a Pravda Newspaper.. Michael immediately quipped something like "if you're making a documentary or have an opinion that conflicts with their way of thinking, you're going to be labeled Pravda...."

(on target -- ouch)

Bill even worked over My governor pretty good -- which is much to my satisfaction.. (*kudos*)

But the surprise had to be the former Canadian Prime Minister Kim Campbell who not only admitted to have watched the movie, but could actually talk from experience, being once a person in power - exactly how the President should have acted on 9/11.. The issue is raised once more:

"The country is under attack.."

The President did not move for another 20+ minutes..

The Secret Service did not move him - but it's not clear why.. Clearly the Secret Service deemed that it was a critical situation when they flown the President to the bunker in Nebraska..

Then - as my girl pointed out to me again: "If the President was concerned about not raising alarm, not exciting the children or causing a stir.. If he was more concerned with the 20 minutes of face time by 15 cameras in the room.. If he was genuinely concerned about the children.......

..... why didn't he leave??"

A very valid point..

The President (as would later be discovered) was a primary target.. Even though he was in Florida - the White House was one of the destinations.. If he was a target, then the children were in jeopardy.. His presence at the school endangered those children.. The decision to fly the President to Nebraska confirms this..

"But the terrorists didn't attack him at the school.."

Bush didn't know that at the time..

Even David Drier admitted that much: nothing was known of the terrorist plot until much later.. But if an aide comes over, whispers in your ear that the country is under attack, what should the President do?? Now I can understand the need to remain peacefully calm at a time of conflict, but when you see that footage - Bush is not calm.. Kim had the perfect response: "I'm sorry to interrupt, your reading is very important and you need to keep it up. Unfortunately my duties as President calls for me to leave you here today." He is the President, he is the leader of the free world, he can do anything he wants anytime he wants..

Fact being: he stayed.. Whatever his motives, he thought it was more important to stay with the book than tend to a national disaster.. He placed a grade school reading session over the lives of over 2,900 people..

That is the responsibility priorities of this administration..

I don't care about the question of "Would Gore have done a better job??" It's an irrelevant question because Gore isn't President.. The question is nothing more than a serious case of Monday morning Quarterbacking.. The ability to second guess a coach's decision to run the ball on 4th down when they should've punted.. Fact being, I have no idea what would've happened if all of this occurred under Gore's watch.. But I refuse to play Monday morning quarterback when My country is at stake and the threats are real..

===================
Brief note about Nader

It's a wonder I even voted for him the first time.. He looked really awful - and he's about as myopic as both candidates running for office now.. He came across to me as someone who just wants to spoil the party.. His platform may have been popular back in 2000, but we're living in a different era.. Clearly a more dangerous time to be alive.. Nader's obsessed in becoming some sort of catalyst in the process all the while he's failing to see the forest for the trees.. How do I know this??

"I will beat George B. Bush..."

"Um - someone please take Mr. Nader back to his room, his diaper needs to be changed..."

Then there were the shameless attempts to plug whatever magazine he was holding in his hand.. Yeah, I get the point that he's a syndicated columnist, but you'd think if you were a Presidential Candidate that you're getting enough air time...... Or maybe that's the problem for Ralph - he may not be taken too seriously this time around..

I do agree though that neither party are putting their best people up for candidacy and not just Bush or Kerry -- but for the thrawls of congress folk alike.. Governors, city administrators -- all the way to the School Board... If we want results, we better get people in there that can do a better job..

Welcome back Bill!!

Air America & the Truth

I had the opportunity this past week to listen to much of what the liberal radio station "Air America" was saying about the Democrat Convention.. I'll say this much: I did enjoy their programs and thought they were intellectual with their thoughts and positions.. Just as much as the conservatives do, they also took their pokes and prods at the other side..

Then the whole issue about "the truth" came out...

Again, I'm stymied with the whole notion that there's just "one truth" for all out there.. But I'm finding it rather impossible to distinguish that there is *ever* going to be a truth out there for all of us.. I applaud them for doing their research, getting various facts together and reporting it as "the truth.."

But anymore, I don't trust anybody if they tell me something they claim to be factual.. Is it so difficult to report various facts and let the public figure out what they want to hear?? It's an issue that continuously bogs down every system we adhere to: whether you're reporting a fire, a crime, the debate, the football game or even the spelling bee.. Writers and other journalists are taking incredible liberties in expression anymore..

Remember.. We live in an era where there is an accusation that says that there is a liberal bias in the media.. Obviously there are news agencies and other journalistic outlets which are attempting to "balance" it out.. So here's a simple example:

You get 10 liberal outlets against 5 conservatives.. The 5 conservatives desperately attempt to get more on their side.. Let's say a year passes and the liberals now have 8 and the conservatives have a good year and now have 9.. Now the liberals want to have the same type of balance and it goes on and on and on.....

I can understand that these outlets are scrambling around because it all comes down to one big thing:

REVENUE

You don't generate revenue - you don't have a job.. So now our news gets catered to us according to our ideologies.. Our magazines.. Our radio shows.. Our TV programs.. Our dailies, weeklies, and monthly subscriptions.. We discard what we don't like and keep the ones we do..

So when it comes down to $$$ hasn't anyone else figured out that the difference between a political action committee and the press is a very thin line?? The huge difference is that PACS are out there convincing the vote using politicians.. The media does much the same way by swaying public opinion..

This isn't a new concept however..

It's a practice that reaches way far back in our own histories.. Way back when the likes of Shakespeare was asked to change his programs to reflect the wishes of those that hired him..

Are we nothing more than a series of people with ideologies that blind us in the face of reality??

I'm going to keep listening to Air America every so oft just to see what they are talking about.. I will admit this much though:

in the times I listened to the liberal talk show, I felt a lot more at ease and calmer than the conservative equivalents...

I guess I'm just a liberal boy after all...

Shooting yourself in the foot.....

"Former national security adviser Samuel Berger stepped aside from his work as a foreign-policy adviser to Democrat John Kerry's presidential campaign Tuesday, after Berger acknowledged that he had mishandled classified documents that were under review by the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks."

What scares Me more than this is that we have two people (Bush and Kerry) who should not be left in charge of a day care center, much less our country..

It leaves Me completely dazed and confused: WHAT IN THE HELL IS THE KERRY CAMP THINKING?? Clearly what Berger admitted to is very serious, very dangerous and completely irresponsible.. Stuffing classified documents in your pants??

"Mr. Berger has acknowledged taking the documents, but insisted that he unintentionally put them in his portfolio. He also has admitted carrying out his own notes, but his attorney insisted that he did not try to do so surreptitiously by stuffing them in his pants.

The confusion produced some possible classic Washington lines, including Sen. Saxby Chambliss, Georgia Republican, saying: "I don't know what happened to these documents after they were put in Mr. Berger's pants."

*slaps forehead*

We're really screwed folks.....

What?!??!?!??!!!

I couldn't believe it..

I've been away for several days, haven't really paid close attention to the news, then lo and behold this is the latest headline:

"Bush: U.S. Looking Into Whether Iran Involved In 9/11"

I'm afraid..

I'm very afraid..

We have a President that is clearly running on a horse into a very bad situation.. We have a President who clearly has no perception as to what the consequences of his actions are.. This guy won't quit..

What information is leading him down THIS road?? What is he getting us into NOW?? Would this intelligence be from the same folks that brought us the Iraq debacle??

Instead of trying to find a link between Iran and 9/11 -- shouldn't we be looking for Bin Laden who........

ahem..

WHO ORGANIZED THE ATTACKS ON 9/11 TO BEGIN WITH??

For Christ's SAKE!!

Look..

I don't care for Iran either.. They don't like us - and I still remember what they did to our hostages back in the late 70's, early 80's.. But *WHAT* possible information does our buckaroo President have that all of a sudden calls for us to look into Iran??

He's placing real live men and women out there just like they are those plastic army men he had as a boy growing up.. Remember - this is a President that has CHOSEN to distance himself from any of the bloodshed this country has been through.. This is the same President who has gone on record as saying: "Nobody wants to see Americans killed on TV every night..." What a remarkable quote.. What he should be feeling is that every time he hears of another service member being killed, he should get even more focused with the goals of this scenario..

I've maintained this from day one: I want a clear and concise resolution to this war on terrorism.. It's not over because Bush insists on fighting every bully who happens to come out against the US.. That's a sign of a lapse of leadership..

Clearly our President has lost touch with reality..

Clearly our President is leading us into a very precarious position politically..

Clearly our President is reinforcing the perception of our country that we are conquerors.. That we are seeking to have a permanent foothold in the Middle East.. That we are no different than Napoleon or any other megalomaniac..

Clearly our President is making some incredibly irresponsible foreign policy that is destabilizing the peace we have enjoyed for the last 40 years..

I will say this though: the Bush's are sure consistent when it comes to throwing caution into the wind..

....and that's very, very scary......

Slanted headlines....

It's amazing just how the twist of a word can really swing a debate one way or the other..

I came across this headline: Who star hits out at Michael Moore via Google News.. When you go to the nme.com website, the headline is actually: PETE WON'T GET FOOLED AGAIN!

Now My initial thoughts after reading the first headline was that Pete Townsend of the band "The Who," was attacking Moore for the movie like so many other people have done.. When in fact the article is about how Townsend was approached by Moore to use one of his songs in the documentary Fahrenheit 9/11..

Townsend refused to allow the song, Moore charged him with being a supporter of the war..

Breaking it down a little bit here:
- Townsend made a song
- He refused to allow Moore to use it in the documentary
- Moore labels Townsend as a war supporter
- Townsend later admits that he was initially in favor of the war, but in lieu of recent developments, he is not sure

Does Moore have the right to criticize Townsend?? Of course.. But that doesn't make Michael Moore *right* in this situation.. Townsend can share his song with whoever he cares to with any or no explanation.. Even if he decides at the last minute that he wants to pull the song (which is what happened..) Remember, the same thing happened to Disney when they were co-owned with Miramax and did not want Fahrenheit 9/11 released.. If it wasn't for Harvey Weinstein and the Miramax group saying "Okay Mickey Mouse, we're outta here," then the documentary would've had a very difficult time getting anywhere..

But back to Townsend, the song and Michael Moore.. Townsend is not obligated to Mr. Moore anymore than I am to helping out if he approached me.. It is ultimately about choice and Pete chose his way at the last minute, Michael was upset by it.. I can understand both parties, but the headline I read on google news is a prime example of why any thing that is printed, reported on, etc. should be raised as suspect..

We live in an era where newspapers, radio and television edit more content than we're aware of.. When it satisfies the "slant" that the company distributing the news -- then we're never given the whole story.. It won't be until we can see the complete, un-edited portion of an interview, of a news story that we can fully make up our own opinion..

Just because a news story appears in the paper, on the radio or TV -- doesn't mean it's the "right" version of what happened.. Unfortunately the companies want to slant their view so that YOU, the READER, the VIEWER, the LISTENER are completely in tune with whatever propaganda they want you to know..

Don't let yourself get suckered into the words on the page..

Allow yourself the ability to faithfully question what information you're receiving..

And lastly: always remember that unless you witnessed an event first hand - that information which you're getting from the press is a different colored pair of sunglasses..

Intelligence Agencies strike back!

"If there wasn't sufficient debate about these issues, it wasn't the fault of the people who prepared this estimate.'' -- John E. McLaughlin (acting intelligence director)

If memory serves correctly - there was a LOT of sufficient debate nationally and internationally before Bush sent troops to Iraq....

hmm

Another interesting analysis in the same article:

But in an hourlong interview on Wednesday morning in his office, Mr. Roberts said he was "not too sure" that the administration would have invaded if it had known how flimsy the intelligence was on Iraq and illicit weapons. Instead, the senator said, Mr. Bush might well have advocated efforts to maintain sanctions against Iraq and to continue to try to unearth the truth through the work of United Nations inspectors. "I don't think the president would have said that military action is justified right now," Mr. Roberts said. If the administration had been given "accurate intelligence," he said, Mr. Bush "might have said, 'Saddam's a bad guy, and we've got to continue with the no-fly zones and with inspections.' "

At one level, Mr. Roberts's comments can be seen as offering support for the White House, by underscoring the view that intelligence agencies, not Mr. Bush, should be held responsible for fundamental misjudgments about Iraq. But the suggestion that Mr. Bush might well have chosen a different course appeared to run counter to the White House suggestion that the president had been obliged in the case of Iraq to head off a potential threat.

Mr. Roberts is the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee - a Republican from Kansas..

Isn't it interesting that the administration and conservative party are clearly playing both sides of the aisle?? "If something falls that way, we'll follow.. If it goes the other way, we'll follow it again..." I haven't seen so much double talk in a very long time..

Lastly: The Gay Marriage Ban fails (today) and MORE (not MOORE)

You know it's election time when the big guns come out.. We're talking everything from the war, to draft records, to gay/lesbian marriages, to the war on terror......

Now - what gets me is this: Bush came out and said by re-electing him, the country will be safer.. Wow!!! I didn't realize it was so SIMPLE!! *hack hack* *cough cough* It's really unbelievable that we have a President that wakes up everyday and goes: "America is safe today because I'm the President..." Let's hear it for the guy who almost committed his own self-assassination plot by choking on a Frito...

So - let's get another thing straight.. Bush is saying the country is going to be safer.. Yet, it's been uncovered, unearthed, otherwise admitted that we have intelligence issues..

Let me phrase it a different way..

President Bush began his various conflicts based on faulty intelligence.. Even the Brits have their own twisted little spin on what happened..

Yet..

Not everyone was so quick to rush to judgment..

Why??

Maybe their President, Premier, Prime Minister, and other Leaders of the world had enough credible intelligence NOT to go to war today.. The leader of the free world, our President Bush - has now admitted there were no stockpiles:

"Although we have not found stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, we were right to go into Iraq. We removed a declared enemy of America, who had the capability of producing weapons of mass murder, and could have passed that capability to terrorists bent on acquiring them. In the world after September the 11th, that was a risk we could not afford to take."

Hmmm..

Clinton didn't act upon the intelligence - for reasons that we may never truly know.. (not sure if it was due to the scandal or what..) Maybe, Clinton didn't act upon the intelligence because he felt it was not strong enough to warrant an invasion.. France, Germany, Russia, and China sure didn't think there was sufficient cause to go into Iraq..

In another words: Bush is a little to eager to pull the trigger, yet if we elect him - the nation, no.. Strike that.. The WORLD will be a calmer, safer place if he remained in power.. We have a genuine cowboy that's just itchin' for a fight.. Remember his immortal words: "bring it on.."

How marvelous is that??

Will someone please wake George and tell him his not dreaming or watching a movie??

Fact Check

Michael Moore has on his website - a collection of links and sources from his movie..

Hmmmmm...

And the opposition's collection of links and facts??

(crickets chirping in the background....)

Huh??

I caught this news story today and it made Me go, "huh??"

Lemmie see if I have this right.. The dude is not wearing underwear.. When they take that wand and keep going over the belt area - and want to know what's underneath there, don't you think that is a little bit of an ASSUMED RISK??

*ughs*

Oh - shucks, darn, and frigglesnacks.....

I found this to be hilarious: Afraid of Fines, PBS Bleeps Words in Dreyfuss Show

This is a COP show.. COPS CUSS.. CRIMINALS CUSS.. For grimminy christmas sakes -- and frigglesnacks......

STOP THE FCC!!!!

Fahrenheit 9/11 or 411??

"If an eighth of Michael Moore's documentary is true -- Bush should be sitting next to Saddam right now.." : Me - after watching the movie for the first time....

Well - we did it..

As unbelievable as it sounds, our little "poke" town finally got Fahrenheit 9/11.. This afternoon my girl and I made it to a Sunday Matinee and let's just say that people clapped after the documentary was over.. Not exactly your standard response from a movie at another theater, but it happened..

Now much of what I say here are filled with spoilers -- so if you're not interested, don't even venture any further..

Also - let's just say that I embraced the movie - so if you're not interested in hearing the various comments from someone who questioned the war, questioned the Presidency, then you probably shouldn't be reading any further.......

3...

2...

1...

Okay -- enough warning..

I'd like to make the following statement very clear: I do not know all of Michael's sources or some of the basis of some of his arguments.. As I indicated up above, should an 1/8th of this documentary be factual - then George needs to step aside.. If (and there's a significant proportion of folks and groups that challenge Mr. Moore) the documentary is a hoax, then it's a masterful peace of propaganda..

Clearly there is a bias and motive on Mr. Moore's behalf to give his version of the Bush administration.. That said, he provides sound clips, bytes and images that we don't always see in mainstream USA.. Granted - again - there's no way of saying if statements and images were taken out of context.. But the stories.. The footage from families, soldiers, and the Iraqi people are compelling.. *That* is a very impressionable story that has gone unreported..

It goes unreported because the press can remember what happened in Vietnam.. They can remember that due to their reports of people dying over there - that eventually led to our pull out.. Is this so that they remain in favor of the government - who supplies them with leaks and other information?? Perhaps.. Still it's bothersome for me - and my girl to think that we don't get the whole story when we tune in our televisions or read our newspapers..

So, Michael's documentary did something very good for me: My eyes are once again, open..

Much of what Michael did - I do remember all the way from the Florida voting issues to the curious military record of our President..

But what interested me the most was the correlation between the Saudis and the Bush family.. There's more documented facts that really have me in awe.. The tangle of connections between the Bush's and the Saudi's make for a very interesting argument of what *actually* happened for the last 12+ years.. Bush Sr. continued to be a consultant for a Saudi oil production company.. Even George's appointments in Afghanistan and the Saudi ambassadorship were ex-execs of the company George worked for before he became governor..

(Remember all of those claims about how Clinton only appointed his close friends?? -- erase that now......)

Then there was a very curious point about the fact that Bin Laden's family was flown out of the country shortly after Bush called for every airplane to be grounded.. There were over 20 flights that left the country - sending the Bin Laden family out of here.. A very curious charge by Michael Moore.. Because it really flies in the face of reason because of few points:

1.) if we do not know it was Bin Laden, then why not keep them and ask some questions as to his possible location or possible uncovering of additional plots against the US..

2.) things were a lot more prepared to get the Bin Ladens out of the US than originally thought..

3.) Considering that 15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia (a fact that may not have been known at the time) -- yet Saudi Arabia asks that 142 of Saudi Arabian nationality be flown out of the country.. Interesting -- because why these 142?? Certainly there are MORE than 142 Saudi Arabian nationals here in the US.. Did we accidentally send off collaborators and didn't even know it??

4.) Saudi Arabia had their hand in the cookie jar a lot more than we know.. One of the claims in the documentary stated that the Saudis have hundreds of billions of dollars invested in the US.. HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS.. I submit that THIS is the real reason why we haven't investigated Saudi Arabia's role further..

Interesting questions to say the least..

Then there were the alarming facts that stood out:

1.) How we didn't send in our special elite task force for 2 months following 9/11..

2.) How Bush was at the elementary school after the first plane hit the towers.. (Why this is even relevant is that I remember something Bush said in an interview where he knew that it was a terrorist act from the first plane hitting the Towers..

2a.) Okay -- if that's the fact, WHY in God's green Earth did he STAY at the elementary school??

2b.) WHY did he continue to read to the children after the second plane hit the towers??

2c.) WHY didn't he excuse himself, go into the school to start with??

2d.) IF he knew it was a terrorist attack, IF he knew this going into school -- WHERE is the leader of our country SUPPOSED TO BE AT A TIME LIKE THAT???????

3.) How it has been reported by the Washington Post that for the first year or so in his Presidency, 42% of the time was spent on vacation, on a boat, cutting wood at his farm, or playing golf........ Moore made the comment that Bush missed those all important memos because he wasn't working as much.. Bush's retort: "you don't have to be working at the White House and not be working....." (um, right..)

4.) How one of the administration official didn't want to hear about the terrorist briefings anymore.....

5.) Then there's all of the stir from Richard Clarke's opinions as to what his version of events were when he was advising the President.. Clarke didn't understand why there was a push to Iraq when we should've been focusing on Bin Laden.. In an interview with one of the news programs, Clarke came out and said that Iraq didn't have any weapons of mass destruction.. That's no big shock -- even to this date there's nothing..

6.) Out of every representative and senator, only ONE has an active member of their family in the military.. Conversely, in Flint, Michigan, there are recruiters (probably not just there) that are practically selling anything and everything to get young kids to enlist.. "Ever hear of Shaggy (the rap artist)? He was a Marine.." "David Robinson played basketball when he was in the Navy.." And that's just wrong.. Neither Snoop (and especially) nor David Robinson ever went into military action.. In fact, David Robinson got a nice kooshy job doing recruiting or some thing like that.. Moore's point was taken: "why not send your own children first before sending someone else's.." Then to hear Bush's comment: "I don't want to send my children, no one wants to send their children.." *ouch*

Again..... why??

The 9/11 commission recently issued their findings over the last few weeks.. Most of the blame seems to be failing to brief the administration correctly.. But my main question to that position is: "why??" Shouldn't there be a motive for the CIA to give faulty information so that we have no choice but go into Iraq?? Moore's movie does not answer this.. I can accept the fact that the CIA lied, okay - but WHY??

*ahem*

The reviews have been rather scathing.. Moore has been branded everything from a jihadist, to a traitor, to a sympathizer to terrorism.. Moore is being called un-patriotic, an idiot and just an all around bad dude who calls Bush an idiot.. But in all the critiques, all of the name calling, branding, treacherous labels slapped on Mr. Moore, there's one important thing I haven't read anyone, or hear anyone say:

"Mr. Moore, that which you bring out in the movie is complete and utterly false.."

Nope..

Nada..

Nothing..

I have heard people saying that it's a brilliant work of fiction.. That it shouldn't be considered a documentary because there aren't any facts in it.. Okay - that's a valid start to the argument but I haven't come across anyone who can denounce aspects of Fahrenheit 9/11 based on fact.. People are pissed that Michael Moore made a movie that calls to question many of the things this administration has done..

Is that wrong??

Is that unpatriotic??

Why?? Why can't people like Michael Moore and Rush Limbaugh rely on whatever version of facts that they want to?? Please note that I'm avoiding the other questionable angles of Mr. Moore's movie: the so called financial (greed) motive for attacking Iraq, the connections between Bush, his family, and the merging of companies and the Middle East.. I leave that for conjecture since there are investment deals like this all of the time.. What I don't get is why Halliburton has off-shore accounts in the Cayman Islands.. That sounds a bit wishy washy for some reason..

Having seen the movie with my own two eyes, President Bush is not put into a positive light.. There's no spinning the movie into a positive for conservatives and that's what's getting under their craw.. They don't want their man to come out of this with a black eye..

To be honest - he should never have gotten into this mess to begin with.......

Here endeth the lesson..

Fahrenheit 9/11

Going to see it this afternoon -- will do a write up when I get back.. :)

Bush is at it again/plus a slight tangent

Bush Speaks Out Against Gay Marriage

Again - I cite that families are already FUCKED to begin with anyway.. Anyone who wants to peruse the number of divorce statistics and custody battles can tell you that.. Let's not open up the whole "it's in the Bible, it must be good" argument.. Obviously Bush forgets the little "oopsies" about the sex scandals involving priests..

He has nothing else to base his stance on except to fall back on "culture" and "traditions" arguments.. Can he say exactly *how* "And changing the definition of traditional marriage will undermine the family structure." No one has been able to say exactly what would happen..

So what possible motivations does Bush have for coming out against gays??

1.) He's a homophobe (a distinct possibility)
2.) He's going with popular opinion (unlikely if Bush claims he never reads the newspapers.. -- which should be a rant for another day.....)
3.) Somehow, somewhere, there's influence in the administration of his policies..

I'm not saying that Bush is under the influence of churches, but the idea in general does raise some incredible questions though about what kind of "support" any (not singling out Bush or Kerry or anyone else) church organization offers.. I remember hearing a brief news blurb in the last month or two that there was an investigation into a particular church's actions in endorsing a candidate for a local office.. Which is a no-no because for them to achieve their tax status, they must remain unaffiliated with politics..........

Think further on that one..

Churches are not *supposed* to intervene in politics, yet they do that really well already.. Also Churches don't want to be told what to do.. But they influence politics across the board.. Generally speaking, most people do look inward to their spiritual leaders for guidance.. That's where I had a problem with religion: I don't like someone telling Me how I should think or why..

So maybe the Church can't give any money for their "preferred candidate", but they can go ahead and add little reminders each Sunday during their services, during their outings, potlucks, and socials.. People talk about the news all the time, and it's foolish to believe that Churches remain "distantly quiet" when such conduct happens..

I want to add one more point to this rant:

Some people can't even comment on politics because of their job.. Now I'll admit I'm one of those people -- who can't even write an editorial in my local paper because of the ramifications for taking a stand on a political issue.. I can get away with posting in forums and my blog because it's rather obscure and not really visible.. If I had 2000 hits a day, I'd likely have to reconsider..

So why do I have these constraints, but the churches can organize protests, campaigns, crusades and off-camera endorsements to candidates??

We live in a world of hypocrisy -- Bush's stance is just a gentle reminder of that fact.. He's delaying the inevitable.. As the population grows, so will the gay/lesbian community..

It's coming George -- this will be a stain on your administration.........

A 10-year time capsule

Ten years from now - I'd like to look back at this thought just to see if it ever came true:

Outsourcing: that which takes jobs from the US and places them overseas.. Cheaper labor, more revenue for businesses.. This is a concept that President Bush has actually encouraged because (as I read this weekend in a magazine) this administration forecasted that the outsourcing jobs would be replaced by "higher paying, more sophisticated jobs.."

That hasn't happened..

But wait.. There's more..

Where are these jobs going?? Does anyone really have a clear clue?? Does anyone have a clear cut understanding of exactly what jobs have been outsourced?? We do know that some of them were technology based, even customer service is now overseas.. It's not too unlikely to call up customer service and speak to someone in India, Japan, or South Korea.. But down the road, what makes us confident that these countries where we've outsourced to, will remain our allies in the years to come?? hmmmm.....

Like Osama - once a friend, now an enemy..

So if we outsource to a country (assuming we're not outsourcing to Iran, or other countries that don't really like us right now) and they become our enemy, consider this: these countries have access, (in whatever degree - that's still debatable) to your account, our technology, and likely can figure out what to do better than we can with it..

The point is, if you give a child a set of blocks, they can usually figure out more creative things to do with those blocks than just stack them on top of one another.. What happens when that child gets angry and throws those blocks, smashing your $1,000 vase, breaks a window or injures someone??

Remember.. Someone from the Administration spoke on Bush's behalf: "In February, Gregory Mankiw, a top economic adviser to President Bush, said offshoring could hold long-term benefits for the economy."

But what about the war on terror??

If we have our companies and corporation exposed overseas - expanding the potential of a terrorist threat EVEN MORE........ but if this administration has the mindset that as long as it "could hold long-term benefits for the economy," we could be fucked down the road..

Of course in a perfect utopia, 9/11 wouldn't have happened, we would be living in peace and harmony throughout the world, there would be no sickness, no famine, nothing that separates those who can get anything they want to those who can barely make ends meet..

I pray that 10 years from now, when I open this - what I just outlined never happened.. I pray that 10 years from now we will be on the road to a perfect world.. I pray..