Step Aside Kansas

Not to be outdone, South Dakota has passed a bill banning all abortions except those involving rape, incest, or health of the mother. This is the second time the legislature has voted on such a ban. The first was defeated by a 12% margin. But before you start having warm, fuzy thoughts about South Dakota, take a look at the regulations governing the abortion process...

Rape victims can receive an abortion only if they report the rapes to police within 50 days. Doctors then have to confirm the victim's report with police, take blood from aborted fetuses, and give that information to police for DNA testing.

In the case of incest, a doctor has to get the woman’s (in most cases the girl's) consent to report the crime along with the identity of the alleged perpetrator (i.e. father, brother, uncle) before an abortion could be performed. Blood samples from fetuses are also required.

And to top it off, at the end of the year, the photos of all those who had an abortion are published in the newspaper so the women can be properly stoned in accordance with Bible teachings.

On the surface, some of this may seem reasonable. The legislators want to prevent those oh-so-common drive-through abortions, and so they created a legal procedure (hoop if you will) that women have to go (jump) through. However, the law seems to totally ignore the fact that rape is an extremely difficult thing to deal with, particularly in the case of incest. Despite being raped by their father, for instance, some girls cannot bring themselves to report their father to authorities. There exists an intense conflict between the injustice of what their loved one did and criminalizing that person, whether it be a father, brother, uncle.

BUT WAIT! It gets better. In the face of an overburdened penal system, the South Dakota legislators thought it would be great to make the sentence for doctors performing "illegal" abortions 10 years, up from the 5 years stated in the previous bill. Brilliant! Sometimes you just have to marvel at the idiocy of it all.

(Drug) Testing Our Kids

The idea of testing middle and high schoolers for drugs seems tempting and threatening at the same time. Currently public schools have drug testing policies in place for students involved in extracurricular activities like sports. However, the Office of National Drug Control Policy is preparing to hold four "summits" on the topic of widespread testing. Drug testing becomes increasingly necessary in today's world as the list of drugs continues to grow and the ability to influence our kids seems to be displaced by other factors.

Schools are overrun with drug problems and its not an issue we can ignore. Affluent suburban schools seem to be particularly hard hit. Children of wealthy parents who are not forced to hold jobs or engage in after-school activities have more time to find ways to "entertain" themselves. Critics of a drug testing policy argue for privacy concerns and the welfare of the kids once they've been outed as "druggies". They're wrong on both accounts.

Every student at every school knows who is doing drugs and where to get them. As a result, the parents also know who those kids are. The current drug testing policy requires the child to be removed from school, and their extracurricular activities, immediately. The removal would come as a shock to no one. Therefore, privacy is not really the issue.

The larger issue in this debate is what to do with the child once he or she tests positive. Again, currently the policy is removal from school and sport. However, that only leaves the child free to use more drugs, especially if the removal creates feelings of depression. Test for drugs, but don't remove the child from the only things that prevent him or her from doing more of them and which create anchors in their lives. Coordinate with the parents to arrange counseling.

Drugs are affecting more and more children and at ever-decreasing ages. As much as parents would love to be able to see everything their children do, it's just not possible. School authorities have even less control. Drug testing, along with the education of both kids and parents (what drugs are out there, how to talk about it, etc.), can stem this rising tide.

Scientology - The Good Side?

Scientology is certainly up there on the list of the biggest hoaxes ever. However, I will give credit to the cult for their Second Chance Prison Program. Essentially, the prison is a six to eight month drug rehabilitation program that began in 1995 in Baja California and recently worked its way into the U.S. The pilot program being untertaken here is in conjunction with the federal government, which has contributed several hundred thousand dollars. My first reaction upon learning this was to be slightly horrified that my tax dollars had been given to a cult like Scientology (the prison disavows a link to the "religion" but bases its program off Scientology teachings). I figured our government had hit a new low with its religious ties. Then I began considering the merits and the current state of our prison system.

In this country many drug offenders enter the penal system for petty crimes and then emerge much worse off, both to themselves and society. They are no longer petty druggies. They've been allowed to associate with much more serious offenders, such as car thieves, murderers, rapists, bank robbers, and so on. As a result of these associations, the once petty druggies emerge with newfound "talents", such as car jacking. Not to mention the fact that our penal system is already overburdened. So I asked myself...would I rather have another Scientologist or a more "talented" criminal? It took a second, but I figured one more person worshipping Tom Cruise is better than a criminal.

Don't Invite Traitors and Twelve Year Olds

“Thank you so much for the courage to stand up against this mean-spirited, vengeful administration,” - Hanoi Jane

I'd like to suggest two things a war demonstration should NEVER have, Jane Fonda and a sixth grader as speakers.

Jane Fonda is one of the biggest traitors this country has ever known. I try to be rational and calm about most issues, but she is too much. About 34 years ago Hanoi Jane posed on a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun, denounced our soldiers as "war criminals", and claimed that our POWs were being treated humanely. I wasn't even alive at that time, but I'll never forgive that b&$!#. To invite her to speak at a demonstration only lessens the impact of the event.

Inviting a sixth grader who's been brain washed by her activist parents to speak at the event also lessens the impact. According to 12-year-old Moriah Arnold, "Now we know our leaders either lied to us or hid the truth. Because of our actions, the rest of the world sees us as a bully and a liar.” I'm sure she came up with that all by herself. No one at the age of twelve can properly evalulate the broad geopolotical forces that have a bearing on this war.

I have no respect for Bush and even less confidence in him, but if you want to organize a serious rally against him and the war, don't invite a traitor and a twelve year old to speak.

Out of Line

Wolf Blitzer's question to Cheney regarding Focus on the Family's statement that gently condemns Cheney's lesbian daughter for becoming pregnant has sparked an intense debate. Admittedly, my first reaction, which I expressed in comments on a couple of blogs, was to sympathize with Cheney. "Wolf was out of line. Period" I wrote on one blog. But I've been thinking hard about this.

First, the real offense was created by Focus on the Family, not Wolf. I will condemn their statement. Wolf merely asked whether Cheney had a reaction he'd like to share.

Second, Cheney will have been at Bush's side for eight years when they leave, much of which Bush will have spent condemning homosexuality and working to marginalize gays and lesbians. What has Cheney done to stop this?

So yes, my first reaction was to be appalled by Wolf's question, but after putting everything in context I just can't sympathize very much. Sorry Dick.

How Much Better Are We?

We look down on radical Muslims as being hypocrites at best and savages at worst. Many believe that the notion of Islam as the religion of peace went up in flames along with the Danish flag burnt in response to the Mohammed cartoon shown in Dec 2005 and the effigies of Pope Benedict XVI in response to his remarks in Sep 2006 that portrayed Islam in an unfavorable light. But how much better are some Americans?

The Dixie Chicks received death threats in response to their remarks about Bush back in March 2003. Evangelical Christians wrote to NBC recently over an offending song about Jesus that Conan O’Brien performed. The big event now is the email written by an employee of Discount-mats.com to a soldier who was inquiring about the purchase and shipment of mats to Iraq because he and his fellow soldiers were sleeping on bug-infested floors. The reply was the following,

“We do not ship to APO addresses, and even if we did, we would NEVER ship to Iraq. If you were sensible, you and your troops would pull out of Iraq.”

Obviously, the company has been bombarded by emails and phone calls, most of which are filled with condemnation. Some, however, are filled with threats. The reply is reprehensible to say the least. A person should be able to distinguish between the commander-in-chief and the soldiers who have to follow orders. The company should have had a standard system for dealing with emails and they deserve every bit of the condemnation they’re receiving.

However, one of the areas America prides itself on, especially in comparison to radical Mulsim countries, is the freedom to speak and not fear for one’s safety. I’m not sympathizing with the company. Nor am I implying that the proportion of Americans who respond in such manners is equivalent to that of a radical Muslim nation. I do think it’s interesting to note that some of the same Americans who criticize these radical groups and countries are the same ones who threatened the Dixie Chicks.

State of the Union

What can you really say about this? A lame duck president whom 61% of the country dissapproves of, who is managing a failed war effort, and who had to find some glimmer of hope in topics he really doesn't care all that much about (e.g. the environment) and that wont be accomplished anyway because he's impotent. And while the many, many "special profiles" were moving, what the hell do they have to do with the state of the union and how you're going to fix it? The man is grasping for a life preserver that no one has thrown.

What's more, I don't understand how pundits like O'Reilly and Laura Ingraham can so blindly support a president who is so clearly failing. O'Reilly did a "Talking Points" segment prior to the president's address based on new Gallup polls, revealing how "the folks" truly feel about the state of our union. Talk about selectively choosing your information. There is no link to the video but here are a few of the "Points" (by the way, any second sentence in quotes is O'Reilly's addition)...

"86% are satisfied with the overall quality of life. This is a great country."

"70% think if you work hard, you have plenty of opportunity in this country"

"63% think our moral and ethical climate is declining. The internet and some media have hit traditional values hard."

"57% think taxes are too high. The Democrats need to get that message"

Let's see if I can summarize...Gallup polled "folks" on the weekend who believe we're better than China, who see those crazy lefties in the media running amok with our values, and who want to keep as much of their money as possible. Yep, everything is peaches. Thanks Bill.

O'Reilly ended on this note, which I found hilarious..."If Iraq had been stabilized, Mr. Bush would be a popular president." That would definitely be true, if "the folks" didn't care about castrating the judiciary, blurring the Church-State boundary, corruption, the environment, or privacy.

Hot Potato

Iraq has become that toasty vegetable that one wants to get stuck holding. Democrats and Republicans alike are jumping ship. Not even Arab countries want anything to do with it. Mohammed al-Naqbi, head of the Gulf Negotiations Center (I have no idea what that is), was quoted recently as saying,

"Iraq is your problem, not the problem of the Arabs"

We can no longer dispute that Iraq is anything but a debacle. One thing is certain, though...Iraq is most certainly an Arab problem, if not more so than a U.S. one.

Turkey already faces a problem dealing with rebel Kurds waging a guerilla war, one they are incapable of fighting because the rebels slip across the Iraq border into the Kurdish north. The Kurds have been largely ignored as the U.S. has been preoccupied with securing Baghdad and hostile regions like the Anbar province. They are only concerned with establishing a Kurdish nation, and this includes helping their rebel countrymen in Turkey. They have no interest in saving Iraq.

Although bad, the sectarian violence (also known as a civil war) is not yet all out. In the event the U.S. leaves, it would become a full scale civil war, complete with refugees fleeing across borders. With unemployment between 15% and 20% and its regime under attack, can Saudi Arabia really cope with an influx of refugees?

Do Saudi Arabia and Jordan really want Iran in control next door?

For all these reasons and many more, the Iraq problem is an Arab problem.

Roe v Wade

Today marked the 34th anniversary of the Roe v Wade decision, and Bush lent all of his usual hypocrisy, ignorance, and faulty logic to the event:

"I have made clear to the Congress, we must pursue medical advances in the name of life, not at the expense of it."

This of course was in refernce to stem-cell research, part of a broad speech outlining the importance of protecting life. So when we limit the funding for research that nearly all scientists agree could unlock some pretty powerful clues to solving terrible diseases, what exactly are we doing? Are the lives we could save with the research but instead forsaking for cell masses not an expense (and a pretty unbalanced one at that)? It seems to me that the life of a teenage girl who down the road, at say age 46, develops Parkinson's after creating a family with a husband and children is worth many hundreds of cell masses. But I digress. This is meant to be more about Roe v Wade.

Is a woman who gets raped not allowed to abort in order to avoid living with a daily reminder of that incident? South Dakota Governor Mike Rounds thinks so and signed a bill stating just that in March last year. Is a teenage girl raped by her father to be forced to use a coat hanger or find a back alley "clinic" because she can't get the parental consent required? Such bills have been presented (which makes me a little suspicious of the state politicians).

The point is this...abortion is an issue where the act is either legal or illegal. You can't create a law that will address every circumstance, and it makes absolutely no sense to criminalize something that will happen one way or another. Why not create the safest environment for it while still reasonably respecting human life?

Richardson: All In But Not All There

New Mexico's Governor Bill Richardson threw his hat into the ring this past weekend. If you don't remember that, it may be that you were preparing for the AFC and NFC Championships, debating Hillary's announcement, and/or still recovering (in one way or another) from Barak's announcement. The person who told him it would be a good idea to compete with those has no place in politics. And that goes double if he made the call.

You're Not in Kansas Anymore

Sam Brownback (KS) today announced his candidacy for the Republican nomination and the formation of an exploratory committee. If the committee is worth a damn, they'll at least drop hints to Sam that America is not prepared to tolerate someone who makes Bush look socially liberal. After eight years of Bush desperately trying to work his evangelicalism into government, there is a very small minority who could tolerate a man who would probably seriously consider making a man like Jerry Falwell his running mate. The state of Kansas elected him their senator. This is still a democracy and that's their right, but America cannot afford to even half-heartedly recognize a bigot who believes the courts should not be allowed to rule on "religious" issues.

In a sense, though, he's right. Issues like abortion and stem cell research are medical issues that should not play such a polarizing role in political campaigns. Do we really prefer our teenage girls and women to receive a homemade abortion with a coat hanger? Do we really believe that a "life" that has no idea it's living takes priority over the 50 year old with a wife and three kids dying of Parkinson's? Do we really want a president who believes he can speak to stem cells? I think the mainstream answer to these questions is "no". He's not running for a position that represents Kansas. He's running to represent an entire nation, mixed with Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, gay, straight, you name it. Brownback is one of the narrow-minded religious conservatives selectively using the Bible to suit his own personal bigotry. But because this is America and not the theocracy people like him wish it to be, he can run. He'll fall far short of the nomination, and that's also the beauty of this country.

Malcontent Maliki

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki and the White House have been exchanging blows in recent months, with the White House accusing Maliki of incompetence, ineptitude, and, in a more subtle manner, a possible bias towards his religious sect, the Shias. Maliki, who has explicitly expressed disdain for his position, has countered with similar accusations of ineptitude. He currently argues that the insurgency has grown because the U.S. has not provided adequate guns and equipment, and that if the Iraqis were provided with such equipment the U.S. could significantly draw down its troops over the next few months.

"If we succeed in implementing the agreement between us to speed up the equipping and providing weapons to our military forces, I think that within three to six months our need for the American troops will dramatically go down."

By all accounts, the Iraqis are using outdated weaponry, so I'll grant him that. However, it is also well documented that Iraqi soldiers are terribly unreliable and extremely sectarian, leaving the U.S., for all intents and purposes, the sole security force in Iraq. As such, the main problem cannot be a lack of adequate weaponry. Maliki knows this. He also knows that now is the perfect opportunity to push back much of the blame forced upon him by the White House while the debate in this country is beginning to climax in the aftermath of the Democrats sweep. Bush certainly deserves every bit of the criticism he is receiving, but the Iraqis could be doing much more to stem the chaos. Better guns is not the answer.

Castro Receives New Anus

Proof that there is a God and that He does have a sense of humor! My only question is...what kind of activities create the need to insert a new anus?

Judicial Activism

The Constitution and the Bible are quite possibly two of the most manipulated documents in history, read selectively by readers to suit policy and moral preferences throughout their respective histories. I'll address Bible thumpers somewhere down the road. Bur for now...The Constitution and its interpretation by jurists has been at the heart of the Bush adminstration's domestic policy since he came to power in 2001, so-called "judicial activism". Among the administration and its supporters, there are few issues more important than judicial activism. They believe liberal jurists are quickly running this country into the ground by defying the laws set forth in the Constitution in favor of their own liberal agenda. In fact, this activism argument is among the key talking points of anti-Democrat rhetoric.

Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

The contents of a speech marked for delivery by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to the American Enterprise Institute tomorrow were released today. According to the strict constructionist, jurists should bow to the will of the president on issues of national security. Hmmm. Now, I thought the three branches were equal. The whole checks and balances thing? In fact, according to Gonzales,

“We want to determine whether he (a jurist) understands the inherent limits that make an unelected judiciary inferior to Congress or the president in making policy judgments,”

Mooorre hypocritical...

“That, for example, a judge will never be in the best position to know what is in the national security interests of our country.”

Wow!

And He's Off!

Yesterday the junior senator from Illinois officially announced his intent to run for the Democratic nomination and the formation of an exploratory committee. Of course, the media swooned, as they have for the last several months. The media and the American public are generally enamored with the idea of the first legitimate black contender. Up to this point the only ones have been Al Sharpton and Carol Moseley Braun, neither of which were inspirational or qualified candidates.

But how qualified is Barak? When Americans rationalize their votes, most will realize that although the man is brilliant (president Harvard Law Review, professor Univ. of Chicago), he lacks experience, particularly in areas where experience matters most, such as foreign policy. Obama has served as a senator for two years, and prior to that he spent six years as an Illinois state senator. We have already elected one president with no qualifications. Why make the same mistake again? Plus, his general attitude appears to be very "kumbaya". A president has to know when to hold hands and when to just be tough and this candidate has failed to prove himself capable of the latter.

Another reason is his name. Barak Hussein Obama. Doesn't exactly roll off the tongue does it? But that's not where the problem lies. "Hussein" is a fairly common muslim name, and one brought to great prominence in this country by a dead Iraqi dictator. Now, Obama is not a muslim, but whether you want to believe it or not, there is a stigma in this country against islam and muslims and anything that sounds like it is related to the two. Republicans and his Democratic opponents will be sure to stress his name, if only to play with the correlation between islam and Americans' fears. This all may seem silly until you start thinking about Americans:

At one point roughly 40% of Americans thought it would be okay for the government to require mulsims to carry id. That was five months ago.

Keith Ellison and his election to Congress (D-MN) in November as the first mulsim garnered wide attention, especially when he decided to use a Quran for his unofficial swearing in.

In August last year, a protestor outside the home of a candidate for the Maryland House of Delegates held a sign that read "Islam Sucks".

Again, Barak is not a muslim and this may all seem very silly, but I firmly believe that some Americans, albeit a small minority, are so simple as to be skeptical of him based solely on his name. At this point, who's in the lead to be the next president? A small minority could carry some swing. In my opinion, he has no chance in 2008. His primary flaw is his inexperience. This is a warm-up for serious contention in 2012.

Like A Bunch of Kids Playing Court

This is what goes on in Congress...absolutely nothing. Though this clip of Barney Frank is hilarious, it's also disturbing how little takes place. The end is particularly nice when Joe Barton (TX) puts Frank in his place.

God Hates Sweden and Canada

Apparently God also hates America and we should thank Him for dead soldiers and the IEDs he makes. All this, and much more, is according to quite possibly one of the most bigot-filled groups ever, the Westboro Church in Topeka, KS and their leader Fred Phelps (I’m not about to bestow him with his title Reverend). The group has demonstrated at funerals for decades, from AIDS victims, to the Sago mining tragedy (I’m surprised they made it out of WV alive), to funerals of fallen soldiers. And why? Because they are God's messengers and because God is a hateful, vengeful God (“You can’t preach the Bible without preaching the hatred of God” ). He is smiting America for its tolerance of the most criminal act the world has ever known, homosexuality. Nevermind that probably none of soldiers whose funerals they have protested at were gay.

So after all this time, it turns out God thought up the whole improvised-explosive-device thing and therefore it’s God, not Bush, who is the one to blame? Lets keep following that line of lunacy, shall we? God is bestowing these Islamic insurgents with a knack for creating cheap and effective explosives. This means, at least to me, that God favors the Muslims. Either that or God is so utterly petty as to side with Muslims who like blowing people up, in order to prove a point that even though He created all people, He really only created the gays by accident and now regrets that decision.

Phelps and his hate group are opposing legislation being passed across the country that bans protestors like him at funerals on the grounds that it violates their Constitutional right to organize. Must we always fight to defend the Constitution, even when doing so allows the desecration of the memories of those who fought so hard and gave so much defending it?

I do take comfort in knowing that at 77 years old, it won’t be long before Phelps is rotting in the outer ring of the 7th circle of hell. And while it is certainly not the moral high ground, I can only hope there are protestors at his funeral. Maybe then his family, which accounts for nearly all of his 100 member congregation, will know the pain they are inflicting on the families of those who have given the ultimate sacrifice in defense of this country and their freedoms.

Oh, and God also hates Sweden and Canada. Who knew?

Soldier or Reporter?

One of the headlines on MSNBC.com is the following: "Troops in Iraq see flaws in Bush plan".

The article goes on to recount the reporter's experience tagging along with a Stryker Company on a mission to Hurriyah. The reporter quotes several soldiers expressing their opinions on the state of affairs, their projections for success, and so forth. But this is not a soldier's responsibility! They are not there as employees of a media company's Mid East news bureau. They are not tasked to fight a war and opine about it.

Soldiers can most certainly have an opinion about the war, but they should not be allowed to publicly express it. A soldier, much less a non-commissioned officer, should never be allowed to publicly doubt a president (no matter how bad that president is). It only contributes to disorder, chaos, and insubordination. Plus, the media seizes on anything controversial. The more fuel they can add to the fire raging across the country over this war, the better it is for their margins. The information can be used to distort the realities of a war. This war is clearly failing, but Americans know that already. Those who won't believe that never will anyway.

One might argue "the soldiers on the ground know how it is really going and if they dont speak then Americans would never know". It's the job of reporters to enlighten the American public. That is why they exist, to act as a conduit of information. Americans don't need to hear from a soldier that his recent mission was "a debacle". We are fully capable of measuring the success of war when we receive statistics like "more than 3,000 dead" or "71% of Iraqis want Americans to leave" or "61% support attacks against Americans". It is the soldier's job to fight. Period. When he retires he is free to write any number of books or give any number of interviews he wishes.

The Surge

No, the answer is not an escalation of forces, but we're not leaving Iraq anytime soon so we might as well start giving the generals the resources they need to fight this war. Some critics believe this will just give the Iraqis an excuse to not step up and assume control of security. Obviously that is a pressure that must constantly be applied to that government no matter what. But I find it hard to believe that an extra 21,500 soldiers will not help. Some critics argue that it simply means 21,500 more targets. Technically that's true, but only if all 21,500 soldiers are standing together in an open area. When critics level their arguments against this course of action they are only thinking about withdrawal..."If we send more troops, then that's a clear signal that we'll never leave". Wrong. This mission is no longer the poster child for spreading freedom and democracy in the Middle East. It is about leaving a country and its people in a situation where they have a chance to succeed.

Right now Iraq is essentially a clean slate, meaning that if we were to leave today, that country would fall into such utter chaos that forces (American or otherwise) would have to return some day. The civil war would be all out, Iran would move in to assert its influence and support the Shias against the Sunnis, and the Kurds would immediately secede. As bad as the war is now, the fallout from our departure would be far worse. Plus, America would lose whatever credibility we have left as a police force. We led a UN contingent into Somalia in 1993 and left it no better (arguably worse) than we found it; we invaded Iraq in 1990 and supported the Shia and the Kurds, who were brutally slaughtered by Saddam after we left; and here we are again, forced to decide whether to leave Iraq a vacuum for whatever radicalism has the most muscle to control it. I am not a Republican who believes we will win this war if we just "stay the course", but there are severe repercussions of an American withdrawal that must be considered.

Not in His Lifetime

Probably the most frustrating argument in opposition to embryonic stem cell research is the "Not in His Lifetime" argument. This has been leveled at Michael J. Fox in recent years for his selfish, attention-grabbing, baby killing attack on Bush's opposition to the potentially life-saving research. Ahhh, and therein lies another argument...potentially. The other of course is that "we can do all the research we want to on adult stem cells". But we'll get to these momentarily. The lastest round of the debate comes on the heels of the discovery of placental stem cells.

According to Phil Gingrey, the obstetrician-turned-Georgia Representative, "We don't have to split the nation on this if we've got an alternative." We wouldn't have to if Evangelical, holier-than-thou, Bible thumping Christians like Bush had not started blurring the line between Church and State. Sen. Brownback (from the great bigot state of Kansas) and Bush must be jacking each other off with excitement, that their devotion to blocking beneficial research in the name of the Lord and their own moral high ground has finally paid off. They have bought enough time to continue delaying the research. Maybe they should make the call to the millions of people with Lou Gehrig's, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and the dozen other congenital and non-congenital problems to tell them that they shouldn't worry...the government has saved cell masses with no family, no thoughts, no feelings, and no memories. Oh and sir, someday we'll do something about the thousands of embryos thrown away each day.

How can people like Gingrey, Sen. Brownback, and Bush look into those cameras, talk into those recorders, and not see the faces looking longingly for a cure? They sure as hell can see the embryos' faces. Meanwhile we wait. Initial research is inconclusive as to the potency of these placental stem cells. But we know for a fact that embryos have some potential, but apparently an unknown level of potential is not enough.

Damn it! I forgot that we can do anything we want with adult stem cells. Of course, that would fix the problem if adult stem cells were half as potent as embryonic. But if you can't get your head around the idea of saving people with spinal cord injuries (Reeve) or Parkinson's (Fox), then for God's sake at least support it to prevent the spread of this.

Here's the bottom line...government has no place deciding scientific and moral issues, especially when the benefits (i.e. savings thousands if not millions of lives) so dramatically outweigh the costs (i.e. the destruction of cell masses) or alternative benefits (i.e. the complete development of those cells into human beings (how many snowflake children do you know?)). This is a major step across that so-called Church-State boundary. If scientists (true scientists and not the Evangelical type) agree that embryonic stem cell research holds the keys to unlocking decades-old mysteries, then what right does the government have to intervene and delay in the hope that something better might come along? This is not even a gray issue. Hundreds of babies are not being born each day from once-frozen embryos. If the government wants to protect life, then why not start by saving the hundreds who die each day from "incurable" diseases and ailments? If you would like to read the administration's latest remarks on this issue click here.

First Rule of 700 Club...Keep It Vague

Pat Robertson's annual prayer retreat, where he supposedly receives God's word, has concluded. And the prophecy for this year is (drum roll please)....really, really, really bad stuff is going to happen. Along the lines of a "mass killing". Damn, that is bad. But how Pat? Well, "I'm not necessarily saying it's going to be nuclear". Whew! Okay, then what is it Pat? Well, "The Lord didn't say nuclear. But I do believe it will be something like that". Wait, you "believe"? You're chatting with the Man Himself for the umpteenth time and He says that some bad stuff is going to happen and that's it? You didn't happen to ask for more information? But don't worry folks. There is a good chance he'll get this one wrong. And not because I believe the U.S. is invincible or that we are the favored people of God whom He will protect. You see, Pat violated the first rule of 700 Club...Keep It Vague. Pat managed to get extra details from the Lord this time around. The attack will happen in the U.S. some time late this year. (I know, not exactly something to plan around, but hey, it's an improvement from previous prophecies). Lets take a look at a few noteworthy years...

2006

Last year was one of my favorites. On the heels of Katrina and Rita and warnings from every -ologist related to the environment that 2006 might experience an even worse hurricane season, Pat received the Word that the U.S. (nowhere specific, just the U.S.) might get hit with a terrible storm. And I'm sure God told him it would occur right around hurricane season too! Hmmm, wait I'm getting something here...I think it might rain at least once in 2007!

2005

As part of his persistent effort to stay bedfellows with Bush and the White House, God told Pat that Bush would have no problem pushing legislation through Congress, including revamping Social Security, and would also get Supreme Court nominations (since the justices were abusing their power to push the homosexual agenda, duh). One might look back and say, "he got the nominations thing right". Hell, I certainly had no clue that two elderly justices with cancer (Rehnquist with thyroid and O'Connor with breast) might vacate. And now, here's the really difficult part, but think back to that time when the Republican Congress was filled with yes men (and women) who's only concerns (their reelections) were a little ways down the road and approximately 50% of America still approved of Bush. But I'm sure his wisdom comes straight from God.

2004

"The Lord has just blessed him. . . . It doesn't make any difference what he does, good or bad."

That's right, we must be talking about Bush. According to God, or Pat Robertson, Bush was going to win the 2004 election "in a walk". Oops! Bush squeeked by John Kerry with 51% of the votes.

1988

"This is where God wanted me to be. . . . I assure you that I am going to be the next president of the United States."

Apparently God changed his mind and forgot to let Pat know. You can thank God for that. This country, and the world for that matter, might be drastically different. World leaders would be assassinated at will (guys like Chavez in Venezuela); the departments of education and energy were on his "to do" list to be axed; pornography would have been up for elimination (and possibly all media that did not advertise his books or "age-defying protein shakes"). Furthermore, Pat has always felt a certain hostility from non-Christians, much like the Jews experienced during the Holocaust..."Just like what Nazi Germany did to the Jews, so liberal America is now doing to the evangelical Christians. It's no different. It is the same thing. It is happening all over again. It is the Democratic Congress, the liberal-based media and the homosexuals who want to destroy the Christians. Wholesale abuse and discrimination and the worst bigotry directed toward any group in America today. More terrible than anything suffered by any minority in history." If he did not directly "retaliate", then at the very least he would have excluded certain people from government..."When I said during my presidential bid that I would only bring Christians and Jews into the government, I hit a firestorm. `What do you mean?' the media challenged me. `You're not going to bring atheists into the government? How dare you maintain that those who believe in the Judeo Christian values are better qualified to govern America than Hindus and Muslims?' My simple answer is, `Yes, they are.'" Liberals can take some comfort in knowing that he shares something in common with Kerry though. During Pat's campaign, he rallied the vets by describing himself as a combat Marine during the Korean War. Although he was a Marine, he was more the weekend variety. According to Marines in his battalion, he was never in a combat situation, but rather was responsible for ensuring the steady flow of booze.

But hey, being prophetic is hard work, and darn it you just can't get it right all time..."I have a relatively good track record...Sometimes I miss". I'm sure God sends the Word cryptically in some sort of Da Vinci Code-type message, you know, just in case anyone else is listening in.

Pat would be wise to revisit the passage he so conveniently glosses over in the Bible:

"When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him." (Deuteronomy 18:22)

And so it goes year after year. I wait with hightened anticipation for the next narrow-minded, outrageous, stupid, self-absorbed, ignorant, exclusionary, and insensitive revelation from the Word of God, while I drink my protein shakes and watch in envy as Pat leg presses 1,000 lbs (unfortunately that was the only day the video camera was available and so his record-setting 2,000 lb press could only be captured on still frame).

I'll Want Two Fingers Please

Saddam's execution has come and gone but some in the media, particularly radio personalities, still ponder what should have happened. The most disturbing is the idea that his execution should have been broadcast to the world via pay-per-view and, what's more, that the proceeds could have been donated to the families of fallen soldiers. Taking it one step further, some people argue for punishment along the lines of the final scene in Braveheart when Wallace is being racked.

How would we be any better than the savages posting their beheading videos? Now, the families of our fallen soldiers are certainly deserving of such proceeds, and I would have loved to deprive him of all that places him in the category of "male" just as much as the next guy. But seriously, at what point does anyone think that any of those ideas make sense? But lets just continue down the path of lunacy and say that once he's dead we'll hack him up and auction the pieces through some sort of cannibal ebay. I can understand the emotion behind all this. But if you truly support our troops, then you will realize the worst thing we could do for them would be to stir the hornets' nest further and make them subject to even more attacks.

Introduction to my blog

As the description states, but which I will repeat for the hell of it, this blog is an outlet, a vent of frustration and cynicism towards the current political and social environments that have become polarised by issues that have no place at the forefront of debate. We have become a mockery around the world, and while I do not make Europe, South America, or any other country or region the barometer for measuring the success of my country, I do believe that when much of the world reviles your actions and their repercussions there may be room for some inward reflection. It is very sad, and hard to believe, that the two party system we have in this country has become even more rigid. The current "with us or against us" mentality that has divided this country is shameful. If, for instance, you support the war on terrorism yet believe the federal government has no place fighting gay marriage, then you fit into no party, no mold. God knows the Republican Party as it stands today will not accept you, you heathen. No, not since the likes of Falwell, Graham (more junior than senior), and fellow narrow-minded, Bible-distorting "patriots" hijacked the party and the political process seven years ago. And Heaven knows you're too gung ho for the liberals, Mr. (or Mrs.) G.I. Joe (Jane). This blog is meant to truly rationalize the issues that, like it or not, confront our society. I'll keep an open mind to any post, if you'll do the same.