Corruption is the Bush Administration

(This info comes from an article by David Barstow of The New York Times.)

Heads should roll! In 2005, Amnesty International named the Guantanamo Bay detention center "the gulag of our times." That's because UN human rights experts were alleging new abuses of the detainees by the U.S. military. Many people urged that the Guantanamo Bay detention center be closed.

The Bush administration responded to this criticism the way it usually deals with criticism -- either by denying the allegations entirely, or "proving" the allegations are wrong. In this instance, the Bushites tried to prove the allegations were wrong. Here's how they did it.

They gathered a group of retired military officers, which they called "experts," which they knew could be depended upon to spout the party line. They flew these officers down to Guantanamo Bay on one of the jets usually used by Dick Cheney. They were then led on a "carefully orchestrated tour" of the detention center to provide them "information" to offer as "proof" that all was well in Guantanamo when they appeared as "experts" on national television.

It's a truly tawdry affair that is ongoing. The military officers "are members of a familiar fraternity, presented tens of thousands of times on television and radio as "military analysts" whose long service has equipped them to give authoritative and unfettered judgments about the most pressing issues of the post-Sept. 11 world."

But these "analysts" are not, in any sense, objective observers or commentators. They are used by the Pentagon to twist facts as necessary to present the Bush administration's war performance in a favorable light.

This Pentagon propaganda machine began at the same time as the Bush began the buildup to war with Iraq. And, as we said, it is ongoing. It seeks "to exploit ideological and military allegiances, and a powerful financial dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air."

Note this carefully: the connections between the analysts and the military contractors are never divulged to the viewing public! The viewer never is told that the "expert," or "analyst," is a paid shill for a military contractor that benefits from the war.

"Collectively, the men on the plane [in 2005] and several other military analysts represent[ed] more than 150 military contractors either as lobbyists, senior executives, board members, or consultants."

According to The New York Times, the data clearly shows that the Bush administration has used these analysts to "shape terrorism coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks. The analysts put forth administration propaganda that sometimes they knew was "false or inflated."

David Barstow says that "A few expressed regret for participating in what they regarded as an effort to dupe the American public with propaganda dressed as independent military analysis." Robert S. Bevelacqua, a retired Green Beret and former Fox News Analyst, said "It was them saying, 'We need to stick our hands up your back and move your mouth for you.'"


Now, if all this is true, heads should roll! Those responsible within the Bush administration should be held accountable! These actions are not to be deemed as of little consequence and brushed aside for they strike a crippling blow to the heart of our democratic system!

Unfortunately, nothing will happen, no one will be held accountable - to our everlasting shame and disgrace as a nation!

This is one more example of how the Bush administration is fundamentally flawed and rotten to the core. Future historians will marvel at the manner in which truth, justice and the Constitution itself were corrupted from 2000 to 2008, and how that corruption was enshrined as national policy under George W. Bush!

$10 Billion but no Cigar, er...Terrorists...

Everyone, it seems, but Mr. Bush and the leading lights of his administration knew that the 9/11 attacks were coordinated and carried out by terrorists, most of which came from Saudi Arabia, and were linked to the famous Saudi person, Osama bin Laden. Mr. Bush, following the advice of his god, who spoke to him, decided the way to catch these terrorists and punish them -- which he swore he would do -- was to invade Iraq, depose Sadam Hussein, and steal all of Iraq's oil.

From the viewpoint of an oilman, which Bush pretends to be, it wasn't all that bad a plan; he could avoid bombing his Saudi friends, the Saudi Royals, and he could fool the American people by pretending Iraq was a
hotbed of terrorism!

The problem was it had no chance of capturing and punishing the terrorists, as the terrorists were not in Iraq, did not come from Iraq, had no connection with Iraq, and Saddam Hussein had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.

That incredibly stupid decision by Mr. Bush has led to a five-year war which has destroyed the country, killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, forced hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to flee to other countries, killed over 4,000 U.S. military, resulted in an Iraqi civil war, brought about the intervention of the Al Qaeda terrorist group which had no interest in Iraq previous to this misguided adventure, destroyed the U.S. economy -- and the end is not in sight.


What's truly puzzling is that everyone knows that the perpetrators of 9/11 lived for years in Afghanistan, moving later across a mountainous 373-mile border into Pakistan's unpoliced tribal areas, which is where many believe Osama bin Laden is "hiding," and making video tapes to tweak the nose of Mr. Bush.

Is there something wrong with this picture? The Associated Press reported a few days ago that "Terrorists are still operating freely in Pakistan along the country's Afghanistan border, despite the U.S. giving Pakistan more than $10.5 billion in military and economic aid, according to the Government Accountability Office. The AP also said the GAO said that "the U.S. lacks a comprehensive plan to deal with the terrorist threat."

You think?

Wait, what are we doing in Iraq if Osama and his friends are hiding out in Pakistan? And isn't Pakistan supposed to be one of our allies in the so-called "war" on terror? If we had to invade Iraq for some reason, why didn't Pakistan take our money and hunt down bin Laden, instead of just taking our money?


The Defense Department, naturally, disputes the claim that the U.S. does not have a plan. Of course we have a plan and it's being implemented says Gordon Johndroe, of the National Security Council. We're doing a lot to deal with the terrorist threat in Pakistan. "We devote resources to health, education, economic development, political reform, as well as going after al-Qaida with the Pakistani security forces."

Hmmm...some plan, the end result being that the Afghan farmers are in hog heaven, because they're making big bucks growing poppies which are turned into feel-good drugs and sold all over the world and ... the US of A!

After seven years, and $10.5 billion dollars, we not only financed the poppy growers, but Osama's running free, and the GAO discovered "that al-Qaida had regenerated its ability to attack the United States and had succeeded in establishing a safe haven in Pakistan's border area."


So, tell me again why we are in Iraq...and why did we give Pakistan $10.5 billion?

Christian School Administrator - Diploma for Sex

This story might give those folks in Florida (and other states) fighting for taxpayer vouchers to send their kiddos to private schools, pause.

In Florida the Religious Right line goes like this: Everyone deserves a quality education and the state owes everyone a quality education, so when a public school is failing to provide a quality education, instead of fixing the public school, we need to take kids out of that failing school, give them our tax dollars and send them to a nice, private (religious) school where they can learn important things like how the liberals lie and this is really and truly a Christian nation, thank god, and where they are less likely to be subjected to homosexual hype, abortionists and evolutionist theory.

The trouble is, some private (religious) schools may pose an even greater problem than a failing public school. For example, in Houston, there is a private (religious) school called Parkway Christian School. The founder and administrator of this particular private (religious) school is the pathetic, perverted LaVern Jordan.

Mr. Jordan thinks he can barter grades and diplomas in exchange for a bit of hanky-panky. He would deny that, probably, except that the Houston TV station, KTRK caught him on tape trying to arrange to play footsie with the mother of one of his students. The mother, like all good mothers, wanted the best for her daughter and at the moment the best was a high school diploma.

In the middle of the day, at the back of a motel parking lot on 1960, Jordan says no problem, just jump in the sack with him, and he offered to waive the $300 school enrollment fee if the mother would have sex with him on several occasions in the future. The taped conversation is quite graphic, like a R-rated movie.

This is distasteful, but one cannot help wonder how many other mothers were offered waivers in exchange for sexual intercourse with LaVern Jordan.

If you live in Houston and you're thinking of placing your child or children in a private (religious) school, you will definitely want to avoid Parkway Christian School so long as Mr. Jordan is the administrator. Unless, of course you're willing to play for pay.

Get the view from KTRK here.

The Pope - He Came and Now He's Gone

Later today the papal entourage will leave the United States for the holy city of Rome and the enclave known as the Vatican.

For some, it couldn't be soon enough as they did not appreciate Benedict's put-down of American culture and his attempt to blame priestly sexual abuse on America's "perverted" view of sexuality.

The first day on these shores, the pope asked "What does it mean to speak of child protection when pornography and violence can be viewed in so many homes through media widely available today?

"Children deserve to grow up with a healthy understanding of sexuality and its proper place in human relationships. They should be spared the degrading manifestations and the crude manipulation of sexuality so prevalent today."

This from an aged celibate who wears dresses, believes in the sacredness of "virginity," and declines to treat women as equals to men!

As Ada Calhoun said with regard to the pope's comments about sparing children: "They should also be spared a religious hierarchy that protects the priests that abuse them. The Pope has yet to explain what the Church is doing to expel pedophile priests, and he continues to stand by bishops who covered up the abuse for years."

So, for many, it's "Goodbye and good riddance."


For others, the pope's departure will be cause for great sadness. The pope is considered a beacon of light in the spiritual darkness of America. The pope offers the way of salvation, the answer to our problems. He represents all that is good and noble. He represents God!

Thus, Mark Shea at the Weekly Standard compared the relationship between Benedict and the Americans to that of St. Paul and the Corinthians. You remember the Corinthians, a bunch of drunken, irreverent louts. Shea calls us a "Paris Hilton kind of people," who are mired in "a culture that is desperately in need of the clarity, humility, beauty, and love of Christ that [Benedict] preaches with such marvelous grace." (from Roy Edroso, Alicublog)

When the pope leaves, we are deprived of the closeness of this "clarity, humility, beauty, and love of Christ." That is a cause for mourning.


On this Sunday, Pope Benedict XVI was in New York to lead a prayer service at Ground Zero. The pontiff invited 24 people to pray with him -- survivors of the 9/11 attacks, relatives of victims and a few rescue workers. "He prayed for peace, hope, and healing, including for those who became ill after breathing toxic air in the ruins."

As part of the ceremony, Benedict went down a ramp close to where the north tower stood, knelt and prayed silently, blessed the ground with holy water, and supposedly paid tribute to the "many faiths of the victims."

I'm not opposed to what the Pope did in New York, but I have a few of questions:

The Pope is supposed to be the "vicar of Christ," to know the mind of God, and to be the vessel in which God's truth is poured out to then be sprinkled on all humankind. When the pope prays, is his prayer more effective than, say, the prayer of a Baptist, or an Episcopalian, or a prayer by Pat Robertson? How about the prayer of a Jew? Or a Muslim? Or a Buddhist?

Does the pope pray for the victims and does he pay tribute to the "many faiths of the victims" when he's home in Rome?

Is his prayer more effective if it's said at the actual site of the devastation?

What does the holy water do?

Why does he (and other clerics) wear clerical garb even though he's not doing clerical duties? Or is everything the pope does considered "clerical" because he is Christ's vicar on earth? I don't think Christ wore red slippers, though.

The big question, however, is this: How can a German Roman Catholic, once part of the Third Reich, be the "vicar" of a first-century, homeless Jew who wandered the dusty roads of Palestine and wouldn't know a Catholic from a dipstick?

Pope Benedict XVI and Anti-Semitism

Yesterday we mentioned Pope Benedict's visit to a New York synagogue. In an interview published in Salon on April 18, Roman Catholic scholar and author, James Carroll, said that he is troubled by Benedict's attitude toward the Jews. When asked what he expected Benedict to say in his address at the Park East synagogue, Carroll responded thusly:

"He'll have to address the history of Christian anti-Semitism in some way, and he'll probably have to address the Holocaust."

Carroll was wrong. As we reported, Pope Benedict said nothing relative to Christian anti-Semitism, nor did he so much as mention the Holocaust. That is profoundly disturbing.

Carroll also noted that previously, when the Pope spoke at a synagogue in Cologne, he "laid the responsibility for Nazi anti-Semitism on what he called neo-paganism [the official Nazi religion]. That's just gravely inadequate," said Carroll, especially for a German pope. "Catholics and Jews who've been part of the Jewish-Christian dialogue recognized that as a troubling signal."

Carroll then refers to an even worse scenario: "When he [Benedict] went to Auschwitz, a few months after speaking in Cologne, he also manifested a very incomplete notion of Christian history in relationship to Auschwitz. Both in what he said and in the incredibly troubling symbolism of the people he greeted there.

"There were 30 Auschwitz death-camp survivors present when the pope went there, and he greeted them. It was very moving; it was beautiful. But, astoundingly, 29 of the 30 were Polish Catholics. One of them was a Jew. Actually, a couple of hundred thousand Polish Catholics died at Auschwitz, and they should be remembered, absolutely. But a million Jews died there, and to treat Auschwitz as if it's some kind of ecumenical grave site and not the center of the anti-Jewish genocide is a big problem. A big problem."

The question was raised as to Benedict's past relationship with the Third Reich; he "was a member of the Hitler Youth and then a German soldier."

Carroll said he "wouldn't hold Benedict responsible for the situation he found himself in as a teenage boy. There wasn't a lot of freedom of choice in Nazi Germany." The crux of the problem for Carroll is that "that youthful experience does not seem to have left him prepared, compared to John Paul II, to accomplish the kind of reckoning that he needs to accomplish."

Another crucial point made be Carroll is that Benedict's "approach to tolerance is limited." This unwillingness to address Christian anti-Semitism is part of what Carroll regards "as [Benedict's] outmoded claims to the triumphal superiority of pope-centered Roman Catholicism. All other Christian denominations, not to mention other religions, are inadequate and inauthentic ways to God. That's also an astounding signal, coming from a pope after the Second Vatican Council.

It is also a disturbing signal, not only for progressives within the Roman church, but also for the rest of us who are not Catholic but live in a world which is deeply influenced by the theologies and practices of the that institution.

(James Carroll is the author of the book, Constantine's Sword.)

Questions for George to Ask McCain Today

In light of the disastrous debate last week on ABC, and in the spirit of fairness, Cliff Schecter at the Huffington Post has a few questions he thinks that George Stephanopoulos should ask John McCain today on Stephanopoulos' show, This Week, today...

Many bloggers have picked up on these questions, including And yes, I DO take it personally, where we first discovered them.

We've summarized Schecter's questions below:

1. Do you agree with Pastor John Hagee that war with Iran is the fulfillment of biblical prophecy?

2. Doesn't your legendary temper make you too dangerous to be trusted with the presidency of the United States?

3. Doesn't your confusion regarding basic facts about the war in Iraq, including repeatedly citing a nonexistent Al Qaeda-Iran alliance make you unfit for command?

4. Given your past adultery, should Americans consider you a moral exemplar of family values?

5. Doesn't your flip-flop on Jerry Falwell being an "agent of intolerance" show your opportunistic pandering to the religious right?

6. Given your wealth and privileged upbringing, aren't you - and not Barack Obama - the elitist?

7. What is your religion, really? And has the answer in the past changed as the South Carolina primary approached?

8. Didn't President Bush betray you with his signing on the Detainee Treatment Act? You claim to be against torture, but aren't you a hypocrite for voting "no" on the Senate waterboarding ban?

9. Why did you flip-flop on the Bush tax cuts you twice opposed? Why do you now support making them permanent for the wealthiest Americans who need them least?

10. With the economy tanking, shouldn't Americans be concerned over your past statements that "the issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should?"

Schecter has two more questions from his book, The Real McCain.

11. How can you call yourself a straight-talker in light of the fact that you have changed your positions or rhetorically flip-flopped on the following issues: Abortion, Creationism in science class, immigration, intervention abroad, tax cuts for the wealthy, civil unions, a Martin Luther King holiday, the Confederate Flag, the Christian Right, Bob Jones University, whether Rumsfeld did a good job, whether Dick Cheney is doing a good job, whether President Bush is an honest man, a Patient's Bill of Rights, global warming, campaign finance reform in general, public financing of campaigns specifically, lobbying reform, whether the War in Iraq would be "easy," whether Sunni and Shiite are working together, whether "Iraqi blood should be traded for American blood," military readiness, how many troops are necessary for the surge to succeed in Iraq, ethanol subsidies, the continuing existence of a minimum wage, closing the gun-show loophole, healthcare for children...and I could go on, but how about we start with those?

12. Finally, if Barack Obama must account for everyone he has ever passed within a 100 square mile radius of, then here are some associations you might want to explain, with the indicted, the white supremacists and the downright corrupt: Rick Renzi (indicted), Terry Nelson (racist ads against Harold Ford in 2006), Trent Lott (pining for a Strom presidency), The Wyly Brothers (corrupt), Bob Perry (Chief Swift Boater), Richard Quinn (white supremacist), Rev. Richard Land (homosexual hate), Ken Blackwell (Ohio election suppression), Charlie Black (lobbyist and according to John Gorenfeld's new book, Bad Moon Rising, Reverend Moon lover). That would be a start.


Cliff Schecter is the author of The Real McCain: Why Conservatives Don't Trust Him And Why Independents Shouldn't.

Jimmy Carter Steps in Doo Doo - Again!

One of the problems many people have with Jimmy Carter is that he seems to give off an excess of self-righteousness. I have no way of knowing whether or not that is true. I'm sure many people feel Jimmy Carter is a humble man trying to do the right thing.

Unfortunately, if you don't know what you're doing, trying to do the right thing can by very trying, or deadly!

Carter decided, on his own, and against the wishes of our government as well as the government of Israel, to trot off to Damascus, Syria and meet with the leader of the terrorist group, Hamas. The purpose of this trek, according to Mr. Carter, was to broker peace negotiations between Israel and Hamas. Carter believes that Hamas "must be engaged in order to achieve Middle East peace."

So, the former president sat down with Khaled Mashaal, the "exiled leader of Hamas and his deputy, two men the U.S. government has labeled terrorists and Israel accuses of masterminding attacks that have killed hundreds of civilians."

What was Carter thinking?

Hamas exists to destroy Israel. Hamas lives to drive Israel into the sea. Hamas proclaims that Israel is an illegitimate state. Hamas sends rockets and suicide bombers into Israel at every opportunity. Hamas is one of the worst terrorist organizations in the world.

The result of Carter's meddling was fourfold:

1. Hamas now claims "new legitimacy from the meetings." Mohammed Nazzal, a spokesperson for Hamas' political bureau, said "Political isolation [of Hamas] by the American administration has begun to crumble."

2. Hamas did not respond to Carter's requests to stop its rockets attacks against Israel or meet with Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Eli Yishai to negotiate a prisoner exchange.

3. Hamas' belligerence hardened as it noted that the captured Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit will "not see the light" until such time as Israel is willing to exchange Palestinian prisoners for Shalit.

4. Israel said that it has plans to built 100 additional homes in two West Bank settlements - the territory wanted by the Palestinians for their future state.

Nice work, Jimmy!

Are Workers As Important as Profits?

The unemployment rate in the State of Florida in March 2008 was the highest it has been in over four years. According to the Agency for Workforce Innovation, 452,000 workers in Florida were without jobs. This works out to 4.9 percent of the total work force, and is slightly better than the national jobless rate which is at 5.1 percent.

In Marion County, Florida, the jobless rate is now 6 percent, up from 3.9 percent a year ago.

Oil has reached a record high $117 per barrel.

AT&T is planning to cut 4,600 jobs. Most of the people cut will be managers. Some corporate jobs will be eliminated.

Merrill Lynch & Co. just recently cut 1,000 jobs and announced yesterday it would cut 3,000 additional jobs.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. reported last Wednesday that it would reduce staff again in light of its aquisition of the investment bank, Bear Stearns, but did not specify the number. Bear Stearns has already cut 2,000 jobs since last year.

Washington Mutual Inc. said on April 8 it is planning to lay off some 3,000 people.

The biggie, however, is Citigroup, which cut 4,200 jobs in January and 9,000 more yesterday, and says more cuts are coming. Citigroup is still bleeding money. But, said chief executive Vikram Pandit, "We're very, very focused on efficiency." I wonder how much Mr. Pandit's annual gift from Citigroup amounts to and if that is counted as part of the company's focus on "efficiency"?


Try as I might, while researching the above facts, nowhere did I find the slightest indication that every single one of these job cuts, or workforce reductions or layoffs or whatever you want to call them, involved real, live human beings, most of which have mortgages, car payments, children to feed and clothe, and regular bills for all the other common household expenses.

When Florida has 452,000 people out of work, when Citigroup cuts 9,000 jobs, or another company lets thousands of people go, that means all these people--human beings--are suddenly thrown into a deep, dark void, a numbing and crushing whirlwind, a torrential rain of existential despair!

That's not all. Here's a complication. The data shows that the individual savings rate in this country is currently a minus. People are actually borrowing money to survive! That means that for most of those laid off, or thrown out, or "cut," the immediate question is: How will we get through tomorrow?"

I don't have a clue. I do wish, though, that someone cared a little bit. I wish that the workers were given the consideration that the CEO's are given. I wish that people would become at least as important as profits.

The Same Old Song in Florida

Well, let's see...Florida's state legislators have been very busy this past year working on tax relief which has meant so little money in the state coffers that they are now forced to cut vital services to education, the sick, the disabled and the elderly. Somehow the rich were not impacted by the tax cuts.

Florida's representatives and senators have also discussed whether Intelligent Design should be taught alongside evolution in our public schools. Some of these esteemed political leaders think that one of the creation stories in Genesis is literally true, which leads them to conclude that there must be a deity who was responsble for "intelligently designing" life as we know it. The teaching of Intelligent Design, they lie, has nothing to do with religion.

You will recall that Florida's elected representatives spent at least two days discussing whether or not to make it illegal to display replica bulls' balls from the back of a motor vehicle. One wingnut wanted to make such a display worthy of a $60 ticket.

Another debate of tremendous import for the state had to do with changing the state song, which, up to this point, has been the Stephen Foster classic, "Swanee River." Florida's governor, Charlie Crist, finds the song offensive and would not allow it to be played at his inauguration.

The legislature has spent a year fooling around with this business. Songwriters across the state were urged to enter a contest to come up with a new song. The winning song was something called "Florida - Where the Sawgrass Meets the Sky," and yes, it's as bad as it sounds. It failed to make the cut as the new state song but as a sop to the songwriter will become the new state anthem!

Now it looks like Florida will keep the same old song, although the lyrics may be updated to make it sound less racist. Or, the song will stay exactly the way it was when adopted it as Florida's state song 73 years ago.

In Tallahassee, they call that progress.

Pope Benedict XVI is Silent on the Jews

Yesterday, Friday, April 18, 2008, Pope Benedict XVI paid a visit to the Park East Synagogue in New York City.

It was a brief visit. The pope gave the synagogue as replica of a medieval Jewish manuscript from the Vatican library. Rabbi Arthur Schneier, in turn, presented Pope Benedict with a seder plate, a Passover haggadah, and a box of matzoh.

There was music. People said nice things to and about each other.

The pope spoke for approximately three minutes. (So, what was the matter? He didn't have more time? He had someplace more important to be?)

In his three-minute address, he is said to have "offered warm remarks." In other words, he said nothing of any consequence. Benedict did not mention the church's historic anti-Semitism; he did not refer to the fact that the Roman Church recently recanted that anti-Semitism and even pronounced the validity of the Jew's covenant with God; and he did not say anything about what appears to many a backward step-the newly-restored prayer in the Latin Mass prayer which stresses the Jews' need to accept Christ to be saved.

Not once did Benedict mention the Holocaust, nor did he offer the promise of closer Roman Catholic-Jewish relations.

How very curious. Is this one of those times when silence speaks louder than words?

More on Gibraltar's "Apes"

My post on the Barbary Macaques (apes) on Gibraltar was not complete...please go to the following link for much more detailed information on this situation.

http://www.gibraltarnewsonline.com/index.php

By and large, the people of Gibraltar are not happy with the proposed cull and action is being taken in an attempt to overturn the government's ruling.

Great Balls of Bulls!

In a previous post this morning, we snidely referred to Florida's state legislator's as a "bunch of monkeys." There are several reasons for such a callous, disrespectful attitude. Here's one of them:

The State of Florida is in the grip of a recession. In some cities, houses are being foreclosed faster than their owners can find homeless shelters. Gasoline prices and food prices have gone through the proverbial roof and more and more people have taken to stealing and robbing so they can eat and buy gas. It appears that within just a few years, Miami, Fort Lauderdale, Palm Beach, as well as the rest of the East and West Coasts of Florida will simply disappear under millions of gallons of salt water, as the ocean rises due to melting glaciers and ice packs. The state budget crunch is so severe that cities, counties and state agencies are laying off people, selling equipment, closing down buildings, cutting back services (even emergency services) ... in fact, things are so bad that some legislators have actually suggested maybe, perhaps, the state should forgo this year's tax-free holidays normally held just before school opens in mid-summer.

So, what do you think is a major topic of debate in Florida's Senate chambers? It's about replicas of bull testicles that often hang from the back of pickup trucks! Senator Carey Baker, a Republican from Eustis, is deeply offended by this display of nature's charms and is sponsoring a resolution that would authorize police to give $60 tickets to drivers with their balls hanging out.

The first debate, which became somewhat graphic at times, took place with school children watching from the galleries. When the debate was re-ignited, senators obeyed the Senate president's wish that they tone down the language. They talked about "glands." Steve Geller, a Democrat from Cooper City, thought the whole testy business untasty and suggested that the Senate needn't bother legislating what people can dangle from their cars or pickups.


If you're interested, you can buy the balls on the Internet at Your Nutz and BullsBals. The owner of Your Nutz is quite pleased with the debate in Florida's senatorial chambers as it has provided him with much free publicity and business is booming. "Every time this happens, it drives my sales through the roof. I can't thank this lawmaker enough. I'm considering contributing to these guys who are coming up with these bills."

BullsBalls has a variety of bull's testes, ranging in price from the mid-teens to about $50. You can get them in mocha, ivory, pink, silver, gold and chrome.

BullsBalls owner, John Saller, is likewise happy when state legislatures try to make his balls illegal as it jump starts his business, too. "Florida is not the first state to do this," he said. Other states that have tried and failed to make bulls balls illegal include Virginia and New Jersey.


We should note that several folks in Florida's Senate have more smarts than Mr. Baker. "It's a first amendment thing," said one. Of course it is. As Senator Victor Crist noted, who is also a Republican, "It was a waste of time. We have better things to do than sit down and listen to a debate on whether or not someone should be allowed to hang an ornament on their trailer hitch or not.

"To me," he continued, "It's a First Amendment right of personal expression..."

Senator Crist is correct. I agree that the hanging of these balls from trucks or cars or boats or planes or whatever is protected by the First Amendment. I also think that it is low-class and stupid! And if the State Senate cannot find anything better to do than deal with matters like this they should pack up their bags and go home so we can elect people with brains and common sense.

Some advice from John Saller: "If you're driving down the road with your kid and your kid asks, 'What's that?' and you don't know what to say, just tell them 'That's a male truck.'"

Jesus a Hindrance?

[This material is from an article by Zach Smith of Scripps Howard News Service]

There's a charity by the name of Jesus House of Hope in Martin County, Florida. It's a non-profit and has been in existence for 24 years. Jesus House of Hope has an annual budget of $825,000, 30 percent of which derives from the four thrift shops it operates, with the balance coming from churches, private grants, individuals and fundraisers.

According to the executive director, Patrick Slattery, the charity has as its mission to serve the needy as Jesus "commanded in the Gospel of Matthew." It does this by providing emergency financial assistance to those who lack funds to meet basic needs and by giving gifts of food to the hungry.

Slattery insists the charity is "really not a religious organization. There's no church. There were never any ministers, never any priests." [Question: What defines a "religious" organization?]

But Slattery's insistence that Jesus House of Hope is not a religious organization is important in order to justify the rationale for a name change. Last year, facing fewer donations, "the charity began to distance itself from the reference to Jesus." Slattery claims some private foundations will not give money to the charity because the word, "Jesus," is included in its name.

Additionally, if people think the charity is a church or "house of worship," and they already give to their own church, they may not give to Jesus House of Hope.

So last month, the board of directors of Jesus House of Hope changed its name to simply, House of Hope. "We decided we were going to have to bite the bullet and begin doing business as House of Hope," said Slattery.

It's done. Although the charity will still be named Jesus House of Hope legally, it will do business as House of Hope charity.

Slattery thinks Jesus would not be offended. I agree.

It is interesting, though, that a charity such as this is more likely to thrive without Jesus than with Jesus.

The Apes of Gibraltar

Gibraltar, the rock that stands guard over the entrance to the Med off the southern tip of Spain, has long had Barbary Apes roaming the mountain, or "high ground."

Gibraltar is a British colony.

Fifty years ago, while part of a group on a U.S. Navy training mission, I spent a night in the Azores. Shortly after we arrived, a United States Air Force plane landed. Its cargo consisted of apes which were tended to by U.S. Air Force "stewards."

We were told this was a "hush-hush" mission; that the United States was supplying apes for the British colony of Gibraltar because the apes on Gibraltar were dying off. So, why didn't the British get their own apes?

Well, the Spanish think Gibraltar should be part of their country. They don't like the fact that Gibraltar is a British colony. And there is an old legend which claims that when the apes of Gibraltar are gone, the British will leave.

The British did not want anyone to think they took the legend seriously by flying in apes to replace ones that had died, so the U.S. Air Force came to the rescue! We kept Gibraltar supplied with apes.

I had the privilege of spending a day on Gibraltar. While I did not get up to the "high ground" to see the apes, some of my friends did. They reported the apes acted quite friendly, but also had a tendency to grab food or purses from the unaware who got too close.


Now it seems "A renegade group of Gibraltar's Barbary apes has annoyed residents so much that" authorities plan to kill them. A few months ago, a "cluster" of these apes took up residence in a "beach-side area ... where they have been stealing food, entering rooms through open windows and harassing tourists..."

Ernest Britto, the territory's tourism manager, was the one who decided to kill this band of looters. "It is a last resort," said Britto, as he thinks they pose a danger to the public health. According to the Gibraltar Chronicle, two of the apes have already been caught and given lethal injections.


I don't care about Britain's colonial aims, but why kill these animals? Is there not a way of returning them to their original homes in Africa, or Morocco, or north Algeria? Maybe they could be placed in zoos around the world?

Actually, the best place for their relocation might be Florida's Disneyworld. Then the monkeys who inhabit our state legislature could drive down to Orlando and see what happened to their cousins when they harassed and stole from the people.

I Wish I Were a Rich Man!

Photo of is Richard D. Fairbank, CEO of Capital One Financial. Mr. Fairbank is a good CEO so far as Capital One is concerned; so good that he was ranked #1 in CEO compensation in 2006 by Forbes magazine.

How much did Mr. Fairbank make in 2006? $249.42 million.


Rich men (and women) have it made under George W. Bush's administration.

In seven years, the Bushites have decimated the middle class. In the United States there are now two economic classes: the "rich" and the "rest."

The latest edition of The Hightower Lowdown by Jim Hightower deals with "What 8 years of BushCheney have done to our economy." Under the headings of "Living" and "Homeowners and Renters," Hightower highlights how George has hit the rest of us:

People living in poverty in 2001: 31.6 million. In 2008: 36.5 million.
Americans going hungry in 2001: 31 million. In 2008: 38.2 million.
Cost of a gallon of milk in 2001: $3.00. In 2008: $3.79.
Rental on a 2-bedroom home in Los Angeles in 2001: $1,453. In 2008: $2,229.
Total consumer credit debt in 2001: $7.65 trillion. In 2008: $12.8 trillion
Personal savings rate in 2001: +2.3%. In 2008: -0.5%


Increase in number of home foreclosures from 2006: 68%
Households currently at risk of foreclosure: 2 million
Households paying more than 1/2 their income for housing: 13 million
Households unable to afford even the lowest-priced rentals: 2.8 million


Here's how Mr. Bush plans to help deal with the housing crisis:

1. Cut the number of housing vouchers that help the very poor pay their rent by 100,000!
2. Cut the budget for housing for poor, elderly people by 27%!
3. Cut the budget for housing for people with disabilities by 32%!
4. Cut the fund for repair and maintenance of public housing by 17% and eliminate funding to repair public housing damaged by natural disasters!
5. Cut the lead-hazard reduction funds by 20%!
6. Cut the block grants to cities and states for housing and community-development programs by 18%!
7. Cut low-income energy assistance by 20%!


Our Congress is not much better. The U.S. Senate approved a bill last week (the Foreclosure Prevention Act...ha, ha!) which is supposed to help American homeowners. It doesn't! Mainly it puts billions of dollars in tax breaks into the hands of the very rich - the very corporate bosses that created the mess to begin with!!!

The Republican Right likes to castigate "liberals" for being too socialistic. They are referring to the fact that liberals and/or some Democrats believe the government has an obligation to provide assistance to citizens in need.

The truth is that members of the Republican Right are actually more "socialistic" than liberals ever were; it's just that the object of their largess is different. The Republican Right cares little for the average citizen, but they do favor government handouts to big business, along with a reduction in competition, regulation, and responsibility of those big businesses in order to unfetter their ability to rake in obscene profits on the backs of those who labor for a pittance.

About this Senate bill: The biggest home builders in our country will be allowed to "claim millions in tax refunds by charging their current losses against the huge profits they made three or four years ago. Other struggling industries would benefit from this provision," these "struggling industries" being the financial-services industries.

But, as Suzanne Barlyn asks, "Why use taxpayer money to aid industries whose practices wreaked havoc on our nation's economy?"

And "What about the rest of us? Do we get to count our stock-market losses against the capital-gains taxes we may have incurred when the economy was booming?" Hell, no!


Our poor automobile manufacturers will also be blessed by this Senate bill by being given a tax break which "would let them collect alternative minimum tax credits, also known as AMT, that otherwise would be out of reach because they did not pay enough taxes in recent years to claim a rebate.

"If the provision becomes law, it could mean checks up to $40 million for the automakers, as long as the companies had made investments in plant of equipment in that amount."

This neat little tax break would also be a boon for our domestic airlines and other manufacturers: American Airlines, Northwest Airlines and Goodyear.

Okay, now we've seen what the "rich" are gonna get (if the bill passes). Where are the breaks for the "rest" of us?

Well, this Senate bill does give a grant of $7,000 tax credit to buyers of foreclosed homes, or homes involved in foreclosure proceedings" ... wait, how does that help me when I have to decide between paying my mortgage and buying food for my kids?

It doesn't.

Again from Ms. Barlyn. This bill does "squat" for the homeowner.

Maybe the House of Representatives will fix it, but I doubt it. They need the big bucks from these corporations to get re-elected, too.

The "rich" will get theirs, the "rest" will get squat!

Lieberman Hesitates to Call Obama a Commie!

Is Barack Obama a Marxist, a Commie?

Lieberman said so, sort of. When the "Sanctimonious Hobbit" (that's Lieberman) was asked about Bill Kristol's linking of Obama to Karl Marx, he sputtered. It was on the Brian and Judge radio show. The question was direct - was Obama a Marxist? The Sanctimonious Hobbit said, "I must say, that's a good question ... I will tell you that during this campaign, I've learned some things about him, about the kind of environment from which he came ideologically. And I wouldn't ... I'd hesitate to say he's a Marxist, but he's got some positions that are far to the left of me and I think mainstream America."

What a wuss!

And that mealy-mouthed, chicken-shit answer is from the man that Obama went to bat for two years ago when Lieberman was up against Ned Lamont in the Connecticut primary. Obama gave a major speech in which he endorsed Lieberman for re-election!

Jane Hamsher on Firedoglake notes an AP story from 2006 which reported that "Lieberman became Obama's mentor when Obama was sworn into the Senate in 2005. But...at the very end of the 2006 race, Obama switched to support Lamont, who had won the Democratic primary and Lieberman was tossed out of the Democratic party on his ass! Sounds reasonable to me.


As I've said before, this kind of crap is going to multiply in the coming months. Michael Savage, which no sensible person even begins to take seriously, has called Obama "a Marxist in his heart." Dear heart! Savage, who likes to savage people continued: "He's an Afro-Leninist, and I know he's dangerous." What in the hell is an "Afro-Leninist"?

Is this a great country, or what? I mean a total moron like Michael Savage is given a nationally-syndicated radio show! This is the same guy who said a while back that Obama was "an unknown stealth candidate who went to a madrassas in Indonesia ... [and] I think he was hand-picked by some very powerful forces both within and outside the United States of America [probably Jewish, don't you think?] to drag this country into a hell that it has not seen since the Civil War of the middle of the 19th century ... [and] the American people, being at war with radical Islam have a -- have a need to know just exactly what kind of Muslim he was exposed to, what kind of Muslim he is, what kind of Muslim teachings he's -- he's friendly to...."

Supposedly about 8 million people in this country listen to this Savage idiot every week. Maybe there isn't any hope!

Where Goes Your Tax Money and Where Goes God?

This is from the National Priorities Project.

If you can't sleep at night because you're wondering how the government is spending the hard-earned money you donate in taxes, this should either blow your mind or set your mind at rest. If you find it sets your mind at rest, run, do not walk, to your nearest psychiatrist!

Out of every federal income tax dollar:

Military spending - 42.2 cents
Health - 22.1 cents
Interest (non-military debt) - 10.2 cents
Anti-Poverty Programs - 8.7 cents
Education Training and Social Services - 4.4 cents
Government and Law Enforcement - 3.9 cents
Housing and Community Development - 3.3 cents
Environment Energy & Science - 2.6 cents
Agriculture Commerce and Transportation - 1.5 cents
International Affairs - 1 cent


Or, you can look at it this way. In 2007, median income families in the U.S. paid $2,628 in federal income taxes. Here's how that money was spent by your government:

Military - $1,109
Health - $581
Interest on Non-military Debt - $269
Anti-Poverty Programs - $228
Education, Training & Social Services - $115
Government & Law Enforcement - $102
Housing & Community Development - $88
Environment, Energy & Science - $69
Transportation, Commerce & Agriculture - $40
International Affairs - $27


Don't you wonder why a country described by our president as "a nation of prayer and compassion ... a nation that believes in religious liberty and welcomes the role of faith in the public square ... a nation that is not only 'innovative, creative and dynamic,' but also one of the most religious on earth" spends almost 50 percent of its money on the military?

Obviously, believing in religious liberty, blabbing about our faith in the public square and being really religious isn't sufficient. There either isn't any god or she doesn't much care what happens to the U.S.

Those are the only reasons I can think of why we have to spend almost 50 percent of our money on the military.

A Scandal or Much Ado About Nothing?

[This from Media Matters.]

"The scandal du jour on the campaign trail is the revelation that 'family recipes' posted in Cindy McCain's section on her husband's campaign website were apparently lifted from the Food Network. To beat back the inexplicable firestorm over ahi-tuna-gate, the campaign has said it was an unpaid intern who posted the recipes."

Right.

But George Zornick rightly asks why in God's name would an unpaid intern have "a final editorial voice on the website of the Republican nominee for president?"

If the unpaid intern story is true, which is open to question, then, as Zornick points out, other questions are raised. About money and "McCain's significant financial handicap."

An article by John Heilemann in New York magazine noted that McCain has only four full-time financial staff persons, and that he is way behind Obama and Clinton in total amount of monies raised. McCain: $11 million total. Obama: $40 million.

So what's going on here?

I still want to know if Cindy plagiarized those recipes!

The Pope & Bush & Hypocrisy

The Pope has arrived. President Bush laid out the red carpet in welcome. Nine thousand plus people gathered on the South Lawn of the White House to sing "Happy Birthday" to the papal leader.

Mr. Bush, smarmy as usual, said that the pope's visit "was a reminder for Americans to 'distinguish between simple right and wrong.'

"We need your message to reject this dictatorship of relativism and embrace a culture of justice and truth. In a world where some see freedom as simply the right to do as they wish, we need your message that true liberty requires us to live our freedom not just for ourselves, but in a spirit of mutual support."

I wonder if Bush has a clue what all that means? It sounds much more like a sermon from a high priest than a message from a political leader. Did Bush put words in Pope Benedict's mouth? Would most Americans have even the foggiest idea of what Bush meant when he referred to a "dictatorship of relativism"? What would Bush know about "a culture of justice and truth?"

And if there is one thing Americans do not need is the pope to help us distinguish from "right" and "wrong."

There has never been a presidential administration since the founding of our country that has had less interest in "a culture of justice and truth." In fact, the exact opposite is more descriptive of George W. Bush's presidency!


This was the Pope's first visit to the United States. Even before landing, Benedict had expressed dismay at the sexual abuse uncovered in the American church. From what he said, it appeared he did not feel the problem was as great in other countries. If true, I'm afraid that's a very naive attitude.

Upon arrival, the message was more upbeat. He said he was looking forward to meeting "a great people and a great church." Standing next to Bush, Benedict said "I trust that my presence will be a source of renewal and hope for the church in the United States and strengthen the resolve of Catholics to contribute even more responsibly to the life of this nation of which they are proud to be citizens."

Bush was even more maudlin. He explained to the Pope that America is very virtuous. It is "a nation of prayer and compassion, a nation that believes in religious liberty and welcomes the role of faith in the public square, and one that is the most 'innovative, creative and dynamic country on Earth' but also among the most religious."

And all the people said: "What a crock!"


Looking at the current situation in the United States and the position of the United States around the world, one may well conclude that Mr. Bush is either deliberately presenting a phony Christian nationalist picture of this country, or is so out of touch with reality he should be locked away in a room with padded walls. Just about everything he has done in the past seven years, when held up against this kind of public religiosity, defines him as one of history's biggest hypocrites.

The same might be said of Pope Benedict XVI. The sexual abuse scandals that have exploded across the face of our nation represent an institution that is corrupt at its core; an institution which, through its theology and practice, has created a culture that breeds contempt and abuse and hypocrisy.

The American church is not a "great" church. It is a hidebound institution committed to perpetrating ancient prejudices: desiring to impose its Catholic "values" relative to abortion, birth control, stem cell research, etc., upon all American citizens; continuing a celibate priesthood; espousing homophobia even as a goodly percentage of its clergy are of that persuasion; and denying one-half of the human race the ability to serve at Roman altars. No, the Roman church has little to offer in terms of "right" and "wrong!"

In spite of his comments to reporters while flying to the U.S., Pope Benedict XVI has much to answer for with regard to priestly sexual abuse in the United States. Being "dismayed" and/or chewing out the U.S. bishops for their laxity is not enough for exoneration!

Thomas Heiden of Stratford, Connecticut, wrote the following in response to an article in Media Matters:

"The Pope's protestation of distress at the abuse of children by Catholic priests is a total sham.

"Cardinal Law, who for many years routinely and knowingly transferred abuse priests from parish to parish in the greater Boston area, has a post of great honor in this Pope's Vatican.

"If Law were anyone else, he would be in jail in the United States. If Benedict is sincere, he should insist Law return to this country for trial. Instead, Law stands as the patron saint of pedophiles."


The Pope and Bush: Hypocrites writ large.

What is my number?

One morning, I crawled out of bed and looked at the clock on my nightstand. The LED said 800. 800 was a good number. I thought that must be my number.

Later that same day, I stood in front of the deli counter at the supermarket intending to buy some fresh bread and Boar's Head salami. No one waited on me. Then I realized the other people standing there had little pieces of paper with numbers on them. I went and got my own number: it was 42. That must be my number.

On my way home, I stopped at the Post Office to mail some bills. I had wised up, though, and immediately went to the little machine and ripped off a number; it said 62. Wow, that must be my number.


I lived with the number, 62, for several days. Then I went shopping at the mall. I bought two sweatshirts as the weather had cooled considerably. The clerk wanted my credit card number, which turned out to be 2212 3212 4432 9870. She was happy, but I was not. That was too long to be my number! How could I possibly remember that?

While at the mall, I thought I'd get a new cell phone as the one I had could not take pictures. I don't know why anyone would want to take pictures with a telephone, but from what I hear it's the latest thing so I thought I ought to get one. I stopped at one of those kiosks where behind the counter sat two youngsters with spiked, orange and black hair, four tattoos, and an attitude. Neither one of them seemed to know too much, and when they asked me for my current cell phone number, I walked away! I couldn't remember that! And that couldn't have been my number, anyway. Whoever heard of a cell phone number being your number?

Things got worse. On my way home I was stopped by a motorcycle cop for speeding. I couldn't have been speeding, 'cause I was thinking about my number and not paying attention to how fast I was going. But she wanted my driver's license number, which was likewise way too long to be my number. I became ever more frustrated.


Two weeks later, I came down with a nasty cough, so arranged to meet with my doctor. She's very nice and did not ask me for my HMO number. But the clerical staff in her office did. That, too, was a horribly long number and I was certain that could never be my number!

I became depressed. Now, like most red-blooded Americans, when depressed I buy things. And it doesn't matter that I don't have any money because I can put whatever I buy on credit. Well, my car was several years old and had a lot of miles, so I drove from the doctor's office to a car dealer whose advertisement I had seen on television. I bought a new car. The paper work was massive. There were a lot of useless numbers, but then I had to provide my Social Security number! Could that be my number? No, it was also too long to be my number!


I drove my new car home, and home was much easier to find as I had had a GPS system installed. Pulling into the driveway, I noted the number 3179 on a wood block on the side of my house. I thought, "All right!" That's a great number and easy to remember! That has to be my number!

The rest of the day I felt really, really good. I knew my number! It was an easy number to remember! Or so I thought. About four in the afternoon, sadly, I realized I had forgotten my number. But when I went outside to check the side of the house, the wood block with the number had been stolen by vandals! Now, I'd never know my number!

My life was a mess!


Much later that night, I crawled into bed and under the covers. It was very, very cold. Suddenly, I heard a frosty voice: "Hey, buddy, your number's up!"

I screamed. "But what is my number?"

Everything went blank.