Carry On Wayward Bird

When I moved in with my wife several years ago, I gained another roommate in her pet bird. A cockatiel named Norton. We've always had a relationship that hovers somewhere between strained coexistence to furious hatred. He's made many kamikaze style dive attempts at my head and I expect he'll be successful one day. He's also charged at me running across the floor, beak out and open for the kill, trying to chase me away from his cage area. Which is a funny sight in itself considering I'm almost 6'3" and he's almost 5" on his tiptoes. But he's been hatching other plots to kill me. I can see it in his eyes.

But I think we may have found some common ground recently. There is a new car commercial, I don't remember for what company, that features the old Kansas classic song Dust In The Wind. When the commercial starts and you hear the first opening notes and lyrics, "I clooooose myyyyy eyyyyyyeees, only for a moment, and the moment's gone...." (Betchya' won't be getting that out of your head the rest of the day now.), Norton right away starts squawking really loud and gets really anxious. By the time the song really gets going he starts flapping around like crazy, still squawking like mad, and then flies into the bedroom and screams from in there until the commercial is over. And you can tell he is just screaming over and over in his own language, "MAKE IT STOP, MAKE IT STOP, I CAN'T TAKE IT ANYMORE, KILL ME NOW!". You can tell he's gone into what I call Crappy Music Convulsions, or CMV.

After the commercial is finally done he flies back to his cage, visibly shaken by the experience. It takes him a few minutes to get over the whole thing, and I swear sometimes you can almost see him panting and his little chest beating really fast, he's so wound up. Very traumatic. Poor guy doesn't even have fingers to plug his ears with. I'm sure you can feel his pain. I sure do. I'm sure that's one of the songs used by the CIA when they're torturing terrorist suspects. That's gotta be against the Geneva Convention.

We might not get along that well, Norton and I, but we'll always have our hatred of crappy 70s arena-rock bands that make us want to kill ourselves when they are played. I feel so much closer to him now. Who knew he had good taste in music? Hell, who knew he had any taste in music?

I wonder what would happen if I put on Boston's More Than A Feeling? Probably shouldn't risk that one. Poor guy's liable to have a stroke.

Think Of The Fucking Children?

Well, let's get off the topic of bitching about religion and their leaders today and move to another group that pisses me off from time to time: Parents.

Yes, that's right. I said parents. Specifically, parents that want everyone else in the world to worry about the well-being of their children, which seems to be most of them. I'm talking about those parents that do nothing but constantly bitch and moan about sex, drugs, violence and fucking profanity on TV or movies or the internet. It is just a constant barrage of "children shouldn't be exposed to...", "I was shocked to see what my child was watching.", "That stuff shouldn't be shown to children.", and they are always asking us to "think of the children". Well, I happen to agree with George Carlin when he said "fuck the children!" I am so sick of having to think about the children. They say children are the future, and I've got no issue with that. But this is the present and it belongs to the adults, not to the goddamn children, and what kids are or aren't exposed to is not my fucking problem. And I'm sick of these parents making it the problem of those of us adults who've decided not to breed. There are adults out there who want to see sex, violence and drugs on TV, and who the fuck are these parents to tell us we can't? And we're not even talking about porn or anything here. They bitch about just about everything, from the brilliant Sopranos to the stupid O.C. By the way, if I were a parent, I would be less concerned about the images of sex and drugs at the O.C. and more worried about what the show is doing to my child's IQ. But that's beside the point.

I'm thinking about this because my wife and I were flipping through the channels the other night and there it was again, on Dateline or something. They were talking to a group of parents and to their children, but separately. The kids, who seemed to be in the 11-13 age range, were talking about their favorite shows (O.C. and Smallville) and then they would cut to showing the parents racy scenes from the shows. I remember a scene from O.C. of a teenage drug and alcohol party and a Smallville sweaty sex scene (who knew Superman got so jiggy in high school?). The parents were just shocked and appalled at the kinds of things their children were watching. And parents love to make proclamations that "things like that" shouldn't be on TV. Well fuck them. First, there is no law that says you have to own a TV. No one makes you buy a TV, or a Sega, or a computer, or a stereo. And it wasn't my idea for them to have televisions act as babysitters for their kids.

Your kids? Your responsibility.

No matter what tools we give these people it is never fucking enough. They have the V-Chip, which federal law says every TV has to have. These parent groups demanded it like crazy in the 90s, not just to have it available but to be mandatory in every TV in America, which made the price of TVs go up about $50. About 3% of them get used. And cable companies give them boxes that can block out anything they want. And that's still not good enough for these damn parent groups. They want "ala carte" offerings from cable providers, so the signal from objectionable programs don't even enter the wires leading to their homes. Even though they can already block the stations they want and ala carte would make cable bills, for everyone, higher. What they want is the entire world to be G-rated, regardless of what the rest of us want, for the "protection" of their child. And I call bullshit on that. We adults have made enough concessions to fucking breeders. If the tools you have been given already aren't enough for you, well tough titties! Movies have ratings. Video games have ratings. Music has warning stickers thanks to that bitch Tipper Gore. TVs can be set up so only PBS and the Disney Channel can be watched. No More! Raising your children is your responsibility. You can always get rid of your TV you know. Cancel the cable, buy the kids some books, take them to museums, and stop making it our problem.

And it will always boggle my mind why there is anything wrong with swearing, as any of you that read me regularly have already been able to figure out. There is no such thing as a bad word. How is cunt any worse of a word than apartheid or Nazi?

Besides, grown-ups like grown-up things. Just because you had kids and can't watch whatever you want, whenever you want, don't take it away from me. You're just jealous.

This blog has been rated PG-13

Shut-Up Pat!

Well, he's at it again. Pat Robertson opens his mouth and more vile shit comes cascading forth. This time he's calling for the American government to assassinate Hugo Chavez, the president of Venezuela. Here is some of what the asshole said:

We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability.

And:

We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with.

And just in case you didn't fully understand what he was saying, he clarified for you:

You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it.

Wow. Where the hell to begin? How about with "strong-armed dictator"? Well, let's think about that for a minute. Patty-boy, you certainly have no problem with strong-armed politicians, being a huge supporter of the Texas Idiot who started a war against the wishes of the majority of his citizens. So that can't really be your problem with Mr. Chavez. Let's look at the dictator part then. According to the American Heritage Dictionary, the definition of dictator is:

1.

a. An absolute ruler.
b. A tyrant; a despot.

2. An ancient Roman magistrate appointed temporarily to deal with an immediate crisis or emergency.

3. One who dictates: "These initials are those of the dictator of the letter."

OK Pat, I'm going to guess that you weren't accusing Chavez of being an ancient Roman or a guy who makes his secretary transcribe his letters for him, so we'll go ahead and assume you mean the first definition. So let's look at that. First, there is "absolute ruler". Well the last time I checked Venezuela still had a democratically elected legislature called the National Assembly, which is elected much like the British Parliament except that the president is elected separately instead of appointed by the majority party. Not only did Chavez win his first term in 1998 by the largest margin in four decades (over 56% of the vote) and even increase that margin in his reelection in 2000 (59%), but he also won a California-style "recall" election in 2004 in which 58% of Venezuelans voted "no" to removing him from office. And the recall vote was monitored by not one, but two independent international observers, who both declared that there was no evidence of fraud. Oh, and there was the coup attempt in 2002 by members of the Venezuelan military backed by U.S. oil companies and supported by the Bush administration. Chavez was returned to power after massive demonstrations of supporters way outnumbered those who marched in support of the coup attempt. Strong leader? Sure. Absolute power? Not even close. All of his power comes from the fact he keeps winning elections and has pretty broad support

What about "tyrant" or "despot"? Well, one would assume that a country ruled by a tyrant would have no independent press, and journalists who spoke against the tyrant would be thrown in jail, or worse. This is not the case in Venezuela. In fact, all of the five privately owned TV networks are his biggest opponents. He hasn't shut them down or put any of them in prison, and no reporters have mysteriously disappeared. Well, he did shut them down temporarily during the coup attempt. Not defensible necessarily, but a little understandable. While they showed all of the anti-Chavez rallies, they refused to air coverage of the larger pro-Chavez rallies and generally tried to whip up support for a violent coup d'etat of a democratically elected government. But if that's the most tyrannical he's been there is not much of a case for him being a despot.

So what else do tyrants and despots do? As we've seen from examples all over the Middle East and Africa, they seem to like to build themselves lots of mansions and castles and hoard millions, even billions, of dollars for themselves while the poor people in their country starve. Can't really say that El Presidente has done that, as he has not built himself any huge new homes or put state money into his personal accounts. But here are some things he has done: He started a nationwide literacy program that focuses on not just learning to read, but also on understanding the country's constitution and their rights under that document. Oh the horror, right Pat?

President Chavez has also started a program to provide free health care to Venezuela's poorest people, in a program praised by the World Health Organization. He has also built clinics, started manufacturing cooperatives to create jobs, opened subsidized grocery stores in impoverished areas, and implemented a land reform program that would give more people the chance to own a piece of property and lessen his country's dependence on food imports. And he took tighter control over the state oil company to make sure more profits from Venezuela's vast oil supply go to benefit the people of Venezuela instead of rich oil executives.

Oh, and democratic reforms too. Remember that little bit about the recall election his opponents used to try to oust him? He created that law, along with the one that created the parliamentary style assembly, when he created the new constitution. He actually made a way for his country to remove the president if they are unhappy with the person in that office.

So that's your definition of a dictator, Pat?

Now to the whole assassination thing. Ummm, so Pat, isn't that against your so-called religion? I believe it's even in your most important list of rules. If you need a refresher see my blog from Friday. I know it's the Catholic version of the Commandments, but "thou shalt not kill" was the same in all three versions I found. Not once did I see a "...unless it's someone Pat Robertson doesn't like". Maybe that part is written on the copy at the CBN compound, but somehow I doubt it.

And rather than dictatorial, isn't helping poor people the (ahem) "Christian" thing to do? The bible says a hell of a lot more about helping poor people than it does about homosexuality being bad. And it's a lot less vague about it too. I'll bet your god would be a lot more pleased with a guy that's done the things Senor Chavez has done to help those in need than with the guy who uses money from the poor and desperate to buy himself expensive suits and a TV station (yes, I mean you dumbass). Ask these guys which way is time better spent.

Look, I'm not saying the man is perfect. There are things he's done that aren't so good, most notably the firing of over 12,000 employees of the state oil company for going on a general strike to protest his presidency. But compare the human rights record of his country against a lot of others, like America's allies Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Pakistan, Colombia, or Turkey and you find a lot more leaders you should be condemning instead.

So why Chavez then? My guess is that, like most nationalistic fascist Republicans like yourself, you are worried that Chavez doesn't have the best interest of the U.S. in mind when it comes to his country's oil. I've got a news flash for you Patty, he wasn't elected by the U.S. He was elected by Venezuelans, three times now. That's two more presidential elections than your boy Dubya has won here in the States. Put that in your collection plate and spend it.

So I've got a different proposition Pat. Instead of murdering Hugo Chavez, I've got a better idea. I say we tie you up in the middle of Times Square and invite everyone in America to come up and kick you in the nuts as hard as they can.

I've got dibs on first in line.

Bible Notes

Well, lets just continue with the religious bashing today, since it's so much fun.

Let's jump right in on the touchiest issue going right now. I'm sure you've all seen the video and pictures of the Israeli army evacuating people from the Jewish settlements in Gaza. Some pretty sensational stuff, people being dragged out of a synagogue, troops having to deal with having things thrown at them (some acid substance being one of them), and weeping settlers as they are forced to leave their home. I would admit it is a tough situation for these people, but it isn't nearly as bad as when they do the same thing to Palestinians they want to make move. The army is helping settlers move their furniture and belongings, which will eventually go to their new homes in Israel that the government is paying for. No bullets have been fired at them, and no bulldozers are ripping through their homes with people still inside.

But I digress. That's not my point today. I don't really want to wade into the lose/lose argument about Israel/Palestine on my blog. I'm not that crazy. Yet.

No, what really gets me is this settler family I saw on the news the other day. They were among the ones who didn't want to leave and they did a little story about them. First of all, guess where they moved to Gaza from? The United States. OK, so the U.S. might have it's fair share of idiot anti-semites, but I don't think that any argument could be made that anyone who migrates to Israel from the U.S. is escaping some sort of religious or ethnic oppression, nor was this family claiming that. No, they said the land rightfully belongs to them. And what is the basis of this claim? Some sort of old deed that shows it was once in their family? A genealogy line that shows their ancestors lived on this piece of sea-front property generations ago? No, their bible. Yep, the bible. According to this family, the bible says this is where David, or Abraham or some other prophet lived, like 5000 years ago. Ah yes, the old "bible says so" answer that religious people love to bring up. I think people need to be reminded of other things the bible, old testament and new, says.

Some guy named Moses, using some sort of magic stick, parted the waters of the Red Sea for his people to be able to walk across.

At some point, in Egypt, frogs rained from the sky.

God killed the first born of every non-Jewish household in Egypt.

Some guy named Noah, in a boat god told him to build, gathered up two of every single species on the planet and set sail for forty days and nights when that same god flooded the entire planet.

People turned to salt.

Some guy named Jesus, who was the son of god and born to a virgin mother, was killed and came back to life three days later.

That's just from the top of my head, I haven't read that boring book in a long time. Now, if you're someone who believes any of those stories are actually true you should stop reading now because I'm going to make fun of you.

Could we please stop the insanity with the stupid people who believe in ancient fairy-tales running the world? This goes for all of them, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, whatever. Every religion has their damn myths, we should stop creating public policy around them. I think someone saying they deserve a piece of land because the bible says so is just as stupid as the idiots who think suicide bombers are getting 40 virgins in heaven, as crazy as those people who committed mass suicide because that comet was going to take them away, and as fucked-up as people who believe the same shit Tom Cruise believes.

I can accept a lot of arguments why the Jews should be there, and there are legitimate arguments both for and against what is happening. But "the bible says so" is not one of them.

Every day people use the bible (or other holy book) as their reason for their bullshit. At it's best it makes people believe that killing is wrong (although why you need a book to tell you that is beyond me). At it's worst, which is a lot more often, it is used as a justification to treat women as second class citizens (or even property), persecute homosexuals, and kill 6 million Jews (the so-called "Christ killers"). And I just won't buy into that nonsense.


In other religious wacko news, last week the religious right held Justice Sunday II: The Wrath Of Khan. No wait, that was Star Trek II. I believe the undertitle of Justice Sunday II was The Wrath of the Racist Homophobic Evildoers. Thank god Tom Delay at least didn't bare his chest like Ricardo Montalban, that would've just been nasty. So anyway, they did their usual railing against "activist (liberal) judges" and how they, as Christians, are going to take over the country and blah blah blah....
My favorite was a guy that I only saw The Daily Show play a clip of, and I can't find reference to him anywhere else to find out what his name is. But one of the things he said was something like this: India is the most religious nation in the world, and Sweden is the most irreligious. So what we have in America is a nation of Indians ruled by a government of Swedes. Gotta love how this guy frames his analogies. I really wanted to be able to ask this guy a question. So religion if religion is supposed to make a society so much better, is he saying that if he was forced to pick another country to live in he would rather choose India over Sweden? I mean, I've never been to either country, but I'm willing to bet that, except for the cold weather, Sweden would be a much better place to live than India. I'd love to hear that guy's argument how India, as a deeply religious country, is better off than the secular Sweden.

Of course my favorite part of these idiots' ranting is how they always claim our Constitution and other laws come directly from the Ten Commandments. So let's have a little look and see how right they are about that. First, you have to get a copy of the Ten Commandments. But which one? After a little searching, you will discover that the commandments are different depending on which religion it comes from. Which is funny, considering they're supposed to come from the same bible. I decided to go with the Catholic version because it seems to have less words. The protestant and Hebrew versions seem to get very long winded. I found it weird that the religion known for hours-long Easter Masses would have the shortest, straight to the point version of Moses' list. So here we go:

1. I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not have strange gods before me.
OK, this one is a non-starter. Not only is this not in the Constitution, the exact opposite is. You are free to worship any god you want, even L. Ron Hubbard.

2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
Well, I know it's not in the Constitution and I know of no place where you'll get arrested for saying goddammit, and it's even in movies all the time.

3. Remember thou keep the Sabbath Day.
Three letter: NFL

4. Honor thy Father and thy Mother.
Not ever really been sure what this means, so I don't think you could write any sort of comprehensible law for it.

5. Thou shalt not kill.
Well finally. Murder is, in fact, against the law in every state in the Union. I would take away partial credit though for the existence of the death penalty. There's no "except in cases of..." in any version of the Commandments.

6. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Pretty scummy thing to do, unless your spouse says it's OK, but not illegal. Although it does help raise the price of the a divorce settlement.

7. Thou shalt not steal.
Another one in common with our laws. We're up to two.

8. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
I'll assume this means you can't lie under oath in court, so I'll give them this one. But really it could just mean you can't lie to your neighbor, which people do all the time and don't get arrested for it.

9. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife.
If this were a law there would be a lot of middle-aged suburban men in jail. What I love about this one is that it leaves open the women coveting their neighbors' husbands.

10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's goods.
Those same middle-aged guys would love to have their neighbors' cars and speed-boats as much as, if not more than, they lust after their neighbors' wives. And no one is in jail for it.

So how many is that? Three out of ten. So the document they claim is the biggest influence on the creation of our laws has only three items in common with our laws. And do you really think that if the Ten Commandments didn't exist murder and stealing would be legal? At best they've got the oath thing, and that's a shaky one to begin with. So as usual, they are just talking out of their asses over there at Focus on the Family. Despite all of their arguments to the contrary, The Ten Commandments had absolutely no bearing on the creation of the Constitution.

And that's the way it should be. Bad things happen when a religion runs a country. Just ask the women in Afghanistan.

The Religious Wrong

No matter how many times I hear the stupid shit that comes out of the mouths of Falwell, Robertson, Dobson, Perkins, and others from the wacko religious right, I'm still amazed by just how dumb they really are. And that the media covers them, which gives them the image of much more credibility than they actually have. The latest thing, courtesy of our friends at Media Matters (because I can't stomach actually watching The 700 Club myself), is this little tidbit from one of the biggest ass-holes in the world, Pat Robertson. On his idiotic show airing on his idiotic network (Christian Broadcasting Network), Robertson went on another of his hate filled tirades blaming gay people for everything wrong with the world:

I had interviewed a lady who was a sociologist who says "I am a lesbian," but she described homosexuality in this term, she said, "They are self-absorbed narcissists." I want you to put that down -- self-absorbed narcissists who are willing to destroy any institution so long as they can have affirmation of their lifestyle. You go back to the various laws that took away the difficulty of getting a divorce, and the people leading the charge were homosexuals, way back in the '70s. So we have no-fault divorce. Who are leading the charge for abortions? So often, you'll find people who are lesbians leading the fight for the destruction of human life. Now they want to destroy marriage.

What the fuck is this dumbass talking about?! OK, so let me get this straight. Homos are the reason we have no-fault divorce and abortion? Ohhhh-kaaaaay. I'd really like him to explain why homosexuals would want no-fault divorce so much since they aren't allowed to get married anyway. You see, Pat, the queers have had no-fault divorce for years. It's called breaking up. No judge, no lawyers, no fights over alimony. They just have to decide whose records belong to who and which one keeps the apartment or the couch they bought together at IKEA. I'm pretty sure none of them care whether or not your wife has to prove your an ass-hole when she decides to leave you. Once they are allowed to get married (and it will happen Pat, you will lose in the end), then they'll probably care what the divorce laws are. And guess who signed the first ever no-fault divorce law in the U.S., in 1969? Drum roll please......Conservative icon, then Governor of California Ronald Reagan, a divorced man himself. But somehow it's the fags fault? I'd say more likely it was the idea of 50-something white male politicians who wanted to dump their 50-something wives to marry their 20-something secretaries. Besides, do we really want to force people who don't want to be married anymore to stay married unless they give a good enough reason to a judge?

Oh, and Pat. Guess what? It's been over a year now in Massachusetts and all the lesbo/fag weddings (well over 6,000 now) haven't destroyed breeder marriage yet.

And lesbians are responsible for abortion? Does this guy even listen to himself? I really can't imagine there are so many lesbians out there accidentally getting pregnant that they would be on the forefront of the abortion rights movement. They've kind of got other problems to deal with right now. Although I imagine in that tiny little brain of his, Pat really believes lesbians all over the country are going and getting artificially inseminated just so they can go to a clinic and kill a fetus. 'Cause, you know, those lesbians just hate babies and would kill them all if they could.

I love how he quotes some mysterious "lesbian sociologist" who says all gays are "self-absorbed narcissists", which would be a really strange thing for a lesbian to say. And I doubt an educated sociologist would use that phrase anyway because she would know that it is redundant to call a narcissist "self-absorbed". If you won't shut-up Pat would you at least buy a goddamn dictionary? Yea, that's right, I said goddamn, you goddamn moron. I suppose now you'll blame me for causing the hurricane season because I used your lord's name in vain.

What a dick.

And the problem with Democrat politicians is they try to win over the dumb hillbillies who listen to this jerk-off. Like Kerry's stupid "I don't believe in gay marriage either" and "I'm not really a liberal" blah blah blah. Stupid way to go about it. I say fuck 'em. These people aren't going to vote for them anyway, they are too far beyond reason so they should stop pandering to these brain dead zealots who actually believe the stupid shit that Falwell says about the World Trade Center attacks being the fault of the queers, abortionists, feminists, and the ACLU. The motto shouldn't be "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em", it should be "if you can't beat 'em, you're not using a big enough stick."

Linked

So I found out I've been linked to something called Leftyblog, which is some sort of left-leaning blog link site that divides them by state. Kind of cool I guess. A link is a link (Hell, I wouldn't care if it was a link from NAMBLA if it meant more readers for my unfocused ranting), and at least one person has found me through them. The wonderful things you find out by adding a site meter to your blog.

It got me to thinking about the thing that happened several years back when the two political parties started trying to link each other to some extremist or other weird groups because they could get to them by clicking from the other party's website. You know, it was something like the Republicans saying that in just a few clicks on a link to a link to a link to a link that got you from the Dems site to gay porn. And then the Dems showed how you could do the same and get to something like the KKK's site or some other racist and/or wacko group. Which was all completely stupid of course. It means absolutely nothing as we all know. You could probably start from any site on the internet and get to some fucked up thing like child porn or a Nazi propaganda site in less steps than it takes to get from Charlie Chaplin to Kevin Bacon.

Just the random thought I had when I saw that someone I didn't know linked me to their site.

God Save The Queen - The Fascist Regime

Thanks to the Sex Pistols for today's title.

So they've done it again. Another catastrophe by British police. First, they said the guy they shot in the head - seven times - was involved with the July 21st attempted bombing of the Tube. Then, they had to admit he wasn't. But when doing so, they had this whole big good reason the mistake happened. This poor man had apparently ran through the station, jumped the barricade, and refused to follow police commands while wearing a big heavy winter coat (you know, to hide the bomb). So he appeared to be a threat and they had to shoot him so he couldn't set off his strapped-on bomb.

Turns out that most of this isn't true. A British TV station got a hold of a leaked video and documents that show him walking casually into the station, using a ticket to get through the turnstiles, stopping to grab a newspaper, and then getting on the train. He was wearing a thin denim jacket, and also had no backpack to conceal a bomb. He was then grabbed and pinned by a one of the British cops that was following him and then shot in the head. Seven times. Plus one in the shoulder and three misses.

Have these idiots learned nothing over the years? Have they never heard of the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four, the Maguire Seven, or Bloody Sunday and all the other innocent people that have been jailed or killed over the years by the British government? Come on, all they have to do is watch the movies In The Name Of The Father and Bloody Sunday. If they haven't, I'm sure Amazon could get them to London in a couple days. Probably qualify for a discount if you buy both movies together. It would be well worth the cost. You know, show them to new recruits and say "Don't do this".

My favorite part of this is the reason why they didn't know they had the wrong guy. Apparently it was because the guy whose job it was to confirm the identity with a video monitor had gone to take a leak. And these fucking people are asking for more police powers, like being able to hold people for three months without charge. Yea, because that's worked out so well in the past.

Paper Or Plastic? How About No?

Time now for another episode of Deni's Pet Peeves.

What is it with this damn country and our overuse of all things bad for the environment? This was even more highlighted by my recent trip to Ireland, but has always bugged me even without the most recent comparison to another country. I speak of grocery bags. Mostly the plastic ones, as they seem to be the most used now. I assume it's because they are cheaper. But holy shit, they hand the things out now like candy at Halloween.

This is completely the opposite of my experience in Ireland last month. Whenever we went to the store there, no matter how many things we bought, we were never offered a bag. I can't be sure, but I don't think they even had bags for customers at the stores, because I never saw one. When people there go to the store they are expected to either bring their own bag or be able to carry it all in their arms. This doesn't seem to cause any trouble at all. As an American tourist, you are not prepared for it at first ("OK, I'll put the cookies in this pocket and the cheese in this one and carry the bread and milk...."), but it really isn't a problem at all once you know about it. Buying a lot of stuff? Bring your own bag. Since stores supplying bags never became the norm, no one expects or demands it.

Contrast this with America. In the course of a day, one can buy three or four items and end up at home with 6-8 plastic fucking bags (double bagging is insanely common) that fill up the space underneath the kitchen sink until they are overflowing and then get thrown out with the recycling (hopefully) or garbage (shame on you). And for what? Seriously, ask yourself how many times you've walked home with one or two items in a plastic bag that would have been easy to carry without the bag or throw in your backpack/briefcase/purse. I'll bet it's a lot, right? Most of the time I'll remember to wave off the bag, but so often when I'm buying something I won't be paying attention and forget or not realize until it's too late. Like the other day. I go to the CVS to get toilet paper and a birthday card. While I was paying through the little debit/credit machine I failed to stop the checkout woman from bagging my TWO items. And this is what she did. First, she double-bagged the toilet paper. Now, if you feel the need to double bag a four-pack of TP, you really need to consider the strength of the plastic bags you're buying for you store. And then, this is still mind blowing to me, she put the card in another separate, smaller bag before putting it in with the toilet paper. Because, I guess, you wouldn't want the wife's birthday card to be contaminated by touching the TP packaging. That would just be gross. So after my walk home that takes about a minute and a half, I had two more full size plastic grocery bags and one small "knick-knack" size plastic bag. For one pack of toilet paper and a birthday card. For about a hundred yard walk up the hill to my apartment. Now, of course I should have remembered to stop her before she did it. But, since I was buying so few items, can't she ask me if I need a bag before throwing everything into one? Or three? What the hell was that about? Did she think there was a chance of the toilet paper ripping through the bottom of the bag if she didn't double it? What was it about the TP that made her feel the need to protect the card from it? I mean, I didn't buy pre-owned TP for cryin' out loud. And I know what you might be thinking, that I could have told her I didn't need the bags and given them back to her. I have done that before, but not always a good idea. For one thing, the attitude you get from the clerk is amazing. Most of them will act like you just pissed on their shoes and told them to clean it up. Also, when I've done this in the past, they will take the bags and throw them in the garbage can. So you can't even count on them being used again. Clerks just want the damn things out of the way, they don't give a shit if they get used again. It seems that once the thing has been touched it's considered "used". At least if I take them home I can make sure they get used again or recycled.

But I do my best. I always wave off the bag if I know I can carry it without. Most people, it seems, don't. They just take it as given without even thinking about it. That's why I think asking people if they need it would at least make them think about it. How many times have you seen someone walk out of a store and take their item(s) out of the bag and chuck the sack in the garbage can right outside the store? I've seen that a lot. And in Boston you're just as likely to see them chuck it to the ground. But that's another episode of Deni's Pet Peeves. Well, as you've all probably figured out by now, Boston is about five seasons worth of episodes.

But I can do better. And so can everyone. You know you can. Just say no to the bags, even if they don't ask you first. Even when you're buying several items at once, think about a few things. Will they all fit in your purse or backpack? If you are just running out of your apartment down to the corner, don't you have a bag you could take with you? And those of you that live in the suburbs and use your cars to get everywhere (also another episode, don't get me started), how easy would it be to throw a few reusable, sturdy cloth bags in your car to use when you go to the store. You would never have to get a bag from the grocery store again. You're using more then your fair share of petroleum already with your car, how about using a little less in plastic. Yes, for those of you that don't know, plastic comes from petroleum. Do I even need to point out any of the million reasons why it would be a good idea to use less oil these days? Or all days?

And for christsakes, don't be that woman in front of me at the White Hen asking for a bag for her single can of Mountain Dew or that guy at the liquor store asking for a bag for his six pack of beer. Yes, I've seen people ask for a bag for something that has it's own fucking handle built in. What do they think that's there for, so they can hang the six pack on the wall when they get home? It's times like those I wish I could make lasers shoot out of my eyes and blow up people's heads.

Yet Again

What the fuck do we elect these people for anyway? Just to cut our taxes(some people's anyway, not mine), screw up the economy and start unprovoked wars? At some point don't we expect them to do some good even if they are someone with a different political bent than ourselves? Aren't there moral truths? Especially from leaders that tout their religious convictions no matter what side of the aisle they're on?

These are the questions I have when I think about what is going on in Niger and Sudan. In Niger we have a horrible famine and in Sudan we have, by my own government's admission, genocide. And what is Bush doing about it? A whole lot of nothin'. You see, it is important for him to get his rest and cut logs on his five week vacation. It's hard work starting wars and giving taxpayer money to millionaires & oil companies, so he needs his rest. The "War On Tear-err" has him plum tuckered out you know.

I'm sure you all have seen, as I have, the horrible images coming out of Niger on the news. Relief agencies are scrambling and struggling to get food to these people and save their lives, and because of the coverage many more people are volunteering to do what they can to help. These people are heroes to me, as I'm sure just about every other person sees them as well. And I can't even fathom the logistics of trying to get enough food to an African desert to save an estimated 2.5 million people. But you know what could really help them? A really big army with a bunch of really big cargo planes. Hmmmmm, now who has one of those? Oh, that's right, WE DO! And not only that, but this could have been headed off before it even got to emergency status. You know damn well that if you and I are hearing about this now, then our government knew about this a long time ago and chose to do nothing. I guess it is punishment for Niger's attempting to sell to Saddam the materials to make nuclear weapons. Oh wait, that was a lie. Well, maybe it's because our military is too busy spreading "freedom" and "democracy" in the Middle East.

And then there is Sudan. It has been two years now that genocide has been going on in Darfur. The current administration has called it that themselves, so there is no denying what we are dealing with there. And much like the Niger famine, they have done nothing. Not only is doing nothing immoral, but in this case it is also illegal. You see, my country - along with several others - is a signee of a little thing called the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. This international treaty was ratified in 1948 in the wake of some little ass-hole who thought it was OK to kill off 11 million Jews, gays, disabled people and other "undesirables" just because he could. And after the smoke cleared the world said "Never Again". So they signed off on the Genocide Convention, which says that it is the duty of every country to prevent genocide when it is identified as happening. But we never have. The Kurds in Iraq and Turkey, Muslims in Bosnia and Serbia, East Timor, Rwanda..........

How many times will we say "never again" before we actually never let it happen again? It's all well and good to have trials for Saddam and Milosevec and the like after it is over, but when will we actually do the "prevent" part of the convention? The crimes committed against the Kurds and Shiites by Saddam are touted a lot as reasons to start the current war, but what were we doing when those things were actually happening? Oh that's right, we were giving him weapons. Back when Iraq was still one of our client states, when these things happened, we just turned our heads and let him do what he wanted. And Rummy, Cheney, and Dubya's daddy were all a part of that. Only when he did something against our economic/oil interests did they decide that Saddam was bad. If they had stopped - instead of helped - him back then, we wouldn't be in this mess today.

And the dumbfuck in the White House now is not the only guilty one. Congress does nothing, and past presidents have their sins as well. Clinton's greatest shame is not a blow job in the oval office, but Rwanda. And I don't give a fuck how many houses Jimmy Carter builds for poor hillbillies in America, how many elections he monitors, or how much he criticizes Bush (though I do love that). It will never be enough to redeem himself for selling weapons to Indonesia, which he knew damn well were for use against the people of East Timor. Something the Nobel committee should have been reminded of before they gave him the Peace Prize. Makes me sick.

I don't think helping to stop genocide and famine is too much to ask of my government. UNICEF can only do so much in Niger, and only an army can stop what is happening in Sudan. My country wants all of the power but none of the responsibility that comes with it. We can't have it both ways.

Bush has taken two breaks from his vacation in Texas (who the hell goes home for a vacation anyway?). Once to sign an energy bill full of tax breaks for oil companies, and the other to sign a transportation bill full of pork projects like a bridge to nowhere in Alaska. No rushing back to Washington to deal with the situations in Niger or Darfur. I guess he had more important things to do. Because, you know, there was a tree on the ranch that needed cutting.

'Roid Rage

As everyone has heard by now, Rafael Palmeiro tested positive for steroids and the baseball writers and sportscasters are having a field day with the whole thing. Going on and on about whether or not he deserves to go to the Hall Of Fame now that he's been tainted, with a lot of them calling for more and tougher steroid testing for players. If you've ever watched Chicago Sun-Times columnist Jay Mariotti on ESPN you've seen that he is absolutely foaming at the mouth over this topic. And now Congress is going to investigate ol' Raffy for perjury. If you remember, back in March several current and former Major League players were called before a committee to testify about steroid use in their profession. So OK, we have a crappy economy and a war we started in the Middle East that's going really poorly, but hey why don't we use our time to investigate a few dumb jocks using steroids? We got nothin' better to do! And of course all the players denied they ever took steroids or HGH, except for Jose Canseco who admitted it all in his book (and implicated Palmeiro and Mark McGwire among others) and was the main reason the hearing was called. And also McGwire, who didn't admit or deny anything and whimpered like a little girl who just lost her first beauty contest. He kept saying things like "look forward and not back" like a question-avoiding pro. So of course he looked the worst at the time. Palmeiro was the best though. Not only did he deny it vehemently, he waved his finger, in a clumsy unnatural way, at Congress as he did it. And I mean really clumsy. I swear it looked like you could see him read the note on his paper ("wave finger during this line", oh right.) before he did it. Then he prattled on about escaping the tyranny of Cuba to become a success by hard work and blah blah fucking blah.

And now he has tested positive for 'roids, as I understand the kids call them. But he says they got into his body by accident, maybe through a supplement or a food. And guess who believes him? His old friend and former boss, The Texas Idiot himself, Dubya. He said this:

Rafael Palmeiro is a friend. He testified in public and I believe him. He's the kind of person that's going to stand up in front of the Klieg lights and say he didn't use steroids, and I believe him.

Goody, Bushy believes him so it's all good. Never mind.

What bullshit. These fucking people on the right (and more than a few on the left) are the ones pushing mandatory drug testing at all levels of life, from high-schoolers to job applicants. And they argue it is a reasonable and effective way to keep our kids drug free and our society safer. But the minute someone El Presidente likes gets busted, he says he believes the excuse. Or that the test was faulty. So what they are admitting is that these tests aren't reliable. Which means there could be kids out there who have been kicked out of school or off teams that said the same thing ("I didn't do it") that could also really be innocent. I guess Big Brother doesn't apply to the rich and powerful.

Whew, that was way too long of a set up to bring me to the point. Does anyone really give a shit? I mean come on, we're talking about guys who run around bases for a living, not people in charge of national security or piloting an airplane that I'm on. If these idiots want to take something that will shrink their dicks and give them a back full of zits, why should I care? Raffy's inability to get an erection has no bearing on my life, except that it is something to use to make fun of him at a game. I guess we now know why Palmeiro, at such a young age, was doing those Viagra commercials. So he's been taking two performance enhancing drugs. Ba-da-bump. Thank you, I'm here all week.

What this all comes down to is that drug testing is fucked up and going down a slippery slope. Personally I could give a shit about these overpaid millionaires and what their employer is doing to them. But the more we legitimize this form of invasion of privacy the more it becomes legitimate to do to everybody. I can't support doing it to millionaire jocks if I don't support doing it to video store clerks or Wal-Mart stockboys. Hell, if your lot in life is schlepping away for Wal-Mart, you better be on drugs. What other excuse could you possibly have? Only heavy drugs could make working there seem more desirable than sleeping under a freeway overpass and eating out of trash cans.
"Well, I had a half eaten Egg Mcmuffin from the garbage for lunch and haven't had a shower in a month, but at least I'm not greeting people at Wal-Mart, so I'm doing OK" - This is a sane person's thoughts.
"Well, the rent is due so I guess I'll take that job at Wal-Mart" - Get this poor guy to rehab!

So where does it end?
"All right then, your home mortgage application is all set, we just need you to pee in this cup for us."
"OK, as soon as that blood test comes back you'll be getting your Discover card in 7-10 days."
"So we'll get this swab over to the lab and get your video-rental membership going after the DNA is approved"
"All right then Mr. Mayer, your sperm count seems to be in order, so here is your first book of checks and your deposit slips. Thanks for choosing Bank Of America."

Give a foot and they take a mile, people. Just say no to filling the cup.

Runaway Juror

I'm back from an amazing trip to Ireland, where I drank much Guinness and drove on the left side of the road. Not at the same time of course. And Guinness really does taste better in grand old Eire. More on that later. Guess what has happened to me?

I've got jury duty! Not just called either, I just returned from the courthouse where I was actually seated on a jury. My first time even being called, so very exciting. Obviously I can't write anything about it yet beyond these facts that the judge said we could tell people:

1. I have jury duty in Suffolk County Court.
2. I have been impanelled for a civil case.

And though it seems like a boring case, you never know what can happen. Maybe I'll have some fun things to write about next week. But maybe not. This should be interesting.

On the first day of being called I felt like I was taking an airplane trip. Waited around a long time with impatient people waiting to hear announcements, and then had to watch a video about the jury system that came across much like those pre-flight safety and info videos all the airlines show now instead of doing flight attendant demonstrations. Cheap video camera work and non-actors smiling into the camera trying to sound exciting while saying some of the most mundane shit in the world. I can't imagine how they got the chief justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court to be in it. Maybe it's in her contract, like movie stars having to do press tours.

I was sitting in the jury pool room today thinking how great it is that I live somewhere that a "jury of your peers" gets to decide the fate of court cases instead of some Grand Ayatollah or some fucked up military style tribunal or some tribal court that orders your sister to be gang raped because you stole a loaf of bread or some shit. But then my second thought was "is it any better to let a schmuck like me do it?" I mean come on, nobody even asked the jurors any questions like "are you a crack-whore?" I certainly wouldn't want a crack-whore deciding my case, so how do they know they don't have one in our midst? Well, I'm not supposed to talk about the case with my fellow jurors until deliberations, so maybe I'll just bring up the whole crack-whore thing in casual conversation during breaks. That's sure to be an ice breaker.

Yawn

Anybody see this? Now, the whole world seems to be going nuts over this guy who jumped the Great Wall Of China on his skateboard. Am I the only one who wonders what the fuck the big deal is? He built these big ramps going right up to each side of the wall, and made it across the 61-foot gap. Ok, cool. BUT, it's not like he jumped the Grand Canyon or anything. He may have been some hundred or so feet off the ground, but when he was in the air he was above the wall, which was only like 20 feet under him. So if he goes skidding off the end of the ramp, he's not going to fall to his death. He's going to sprain his ankle or bruise his leg like any other skating crash. Whoop-di-doo. And the ramp looks to be about 300 feet wide so there's no chance he'll skid off the side into the real height drop. These kind of stupid stunts have always annoyed me. It's like when they light stuff on fire for motorcycle jumps, ala Evel Knievel, when in fact the fire makes it no more dangerous than any other jump of that distance. He's always got on a fire-proof jumpsuit and there are guys with extinguishers on every side. Oooooh, walk on the wild side of fire safety. What's next, guys bragging about bowling a 300 when they use the kiddy bumpers during the game? Color me unimpressed.

I'm off to Ireland for the week. I'll be ranting at you when I get back. Peace.

FOX Holes

What the fuck is with these people? For those of you that don't watch FOX News, have you heard some of the shit that was said on Murdoch's little propaganda machine after the London bombing? Well, get a load of this shit, courtesy of our friends at Media Matters.

First, there's this dick Brian Kilmead suggesting that this was a good thing to happen. According to him, we can now put global warming on the coal-fired back burner, along with African aid, and just stick to terrorism like we should have been all along.

So everyone knows that the day before the bombing London was awarded the 2012 Olympics. This is what FOX host John Gibson said then:

By the way, just wanted to tell you people, we missed -- the International Olympic Committee missed a golden opportunity today. If they had picked France, if they had picked France instead of London, to hold the Olympics, it would have been the one time we could look forward to where we didn't worry about terrorism. They'd blow up Paris, and who cares?

And then he said this after the attacks:

The bombings in London: This is why I thought the Brits should let the French have the Olympics -- let somebody else be worried about guys with backpack bombs for a while.

Where to begin on this guy? First, he speaks as though the awarding of the Olympics is somehow the reason for this bombing. So a big coordinated terrorist attack was planned and carried out in less than a day? Riiiight. And this whole French hating thing is just so odd. What I find the funniest about the whole thing is that Americans basically hate the French for the same reasons people hate Americans. A rude, angry, fuck-you attitude and they are completely impatient with people who come to their country and don't know their language. And we bash them for not going along with their war. Gibson, and other right-wing nutjobs, talk like we have some sort of kinship with the British and slam the French for being against our war. What none of them seem to remember is that the British people are against the war as much as the French. It's just that Tony Blair doesn't care what his people want, he is only concerned with pleasing his master Darth W. Sidious. Londoners will still be against the war and Tony Blair's approval ratings will drop back to the toilet after about six months. But for some reason, FOX thinks the British people are their comrades in the "War On Terror" (don't even get me started on that phrase). And holy shit, what kind of "journalist" comes out and says it would be ok if this city or that city got bombed? It might qualify as the worst thing said on FOX News, except that our old friend Brit Hume was working that day too.

Hume, FOX's Washington bureau managing editor, is the ass-hole who, early in the war in Iraq, compared the number of deaths of American soldiers in Iraq to California's murder rate and declared that the troops were safer in Iraq than they would be in The Golden State. So he's a big prick. But he topped himself this time. This guy is on the air hours after the bombing in London, and he says what his "first thought" was when he heard about the attacks:

I mean, my first thought when I heard -- just on a personal basis, when I heard there had been this attack and I saw the futures this morning, which were really in the tank, I thought, "Hmmm, time to buy."

Seriously, that's what he said. Fucking "time to buy" right after finding out that a bunch of people are probably dead. The man is scum. Can you imagine if this guy had been around reporting on the end of the Holocaust in WWII? "Boy, when I first heard about Auschwitz I sure wished I had invested in an industrial oven company before the war"

I hope he gets beat up by a Brit. Better yet, a Frenchman who lives in London. That'd be sweet.

Theirs vs. Ours

I have been following all of the developments today in the London Underground attack, and there are a couple of things that struck me.

I have certainly had my problems with Tony Blair the last few years (mostly for being Bush's bitch), but he does have one big plus over our moron. Read this statement he made right after the attacks today and see if you can point out the big difference between this and the dumb Texan's first statement after the World Trade Center attacks:

I'm just going to make a short statement to you on the terrible events that have happened in London earlier today. And I hope you understand that at the present time we're still trying to establish what has happened. There's a limit to what information I can give you. And I'll simply try and tell you the information as best I can at the moment.

It's reasonably clear there have been a series of terrorist attacks in London. There are, obviously, casualties, both people that have died and people seriously injured. And our thoughts and prayers, of course, are with the victims and their families.

It's my intention to leave the G-8 within the next couple of hours and go down to London and get a report face to face with the police and the emergency services and the ministers that have been dealing with this, and then to return later this evening.

It is the will of all the leaders at the G-8, however, that the meeting should continue in my absence, that we should continue to discuss the issues that we were going to discuss and reach the conclusions which we were going to reach.

Each of the countries around that table has some experience of the effects of terrorism. And all the leaders, as they will indicate a little bit later, share our complete resolution to defeat this terrorism.

It's particularly barbaric that this has happened on a day when people are meeting to try to help the problems of poverty in Africa and the long-term problems of climate change in the environment.

Just as it is reasonably clear that this is a terrorist attack, or a series of terrorist attacks, it's also reasonably clear that it is designed and aimed to coincide with the opening of the G-8.

There will be time to talk later about this.

It's important, however, that those engaged in terrorism realize that our determination to defend our values and our way of life is greater than their determination to cause death and destruction to innocent people in a desire to impose extremism on the world.

Anyone? That's right, nowhere in there does he tell everyone to go shopping. Kudos to Tony Blair for not being a complete, disconnected-from-reality, idiot.

And here is a little of our dumbfuck's first statement today:

On the one hand, we got people here who are working to alleviate poverty and to help rid the world of the pandemic of AIDS and that are working on ways to have a clean environment. And on the other hand, you've got people killing innocent people. And the contrast couldn't be clearer between the intentions and the hearts of those of us who care deeply about human rights and human liberty, and those who kill, those who've got such evil in their heart that they will take the lives of innocent folks.

Yes Mr. President we do have people at that meeting who are trying to accomplish those things. Unfortunately, you're there too, putting up roadblocks every step of the way. You strip money away from real sex-ed programs and veto the Kyoto agreement on global warming, and now you try to lump yourself in as one of the people trying to stop the AIDS pandemic and save the environment?

What an ass hole.

And for the love of god would you please stop calling everyone "folk"? It may have helped you win the votes of Ma & Pa Kettle in Alabama, but you're embarrassing the rest of us on the world stage.

Scroll Down

As you have probably been able to tell the last couple of weeks, my blog seems to have a slight technical problem. For some unknown reason there is a huge gap between the title of the most recent entry and the post itself, that makes it seem on first glance to be blank. The fine folks at Blogger.com have replied to my email that there is a bug they are working on and hope to get it taken care of soon. It seems to be taking longer than I hoped, but how can I complain about a service I get for free? In the meantime, just remember to scroll down past my links to see the newest rant from me. Or not. Do whatever the fuck you want, I'm not the boss of you.

The Pollutinator

This last Sunday The Independent newspaper of London ran an op-ed by Arnold Schwarzenegger about global warming. I'm sure you've heard about it, as it has been getting a decent amount of press. So the Republican governor of California disagrees with the leader of his party and believes that global warming is: a) real, and b) caused by humans. Here is a little bit of what he said, courtesy of the L.A. times. (The Independent wanted a whole British Pound for the original article and I just couldn't justify spending that much money on an piece written by a talking monkey):

"The debate is over. We know the science. We see the threat posed by changes in our climate," Schwarzenegger wrote. "And we know the time for action is now.

"I ask citizens and governments everywhere to do their part by conserving energy, reducing the use of fossil fuels, reducing waste and taking every opportunity to work together for a cleaner, healthier tomorrow."

and this:

"Many people have falsely assumed that you have to choose between protecting the environment and protecting the economy," he wrote. "Nothing could be further from the truth. In California we will do both."

OK, so far so good. We need politicians who stand up for the environment. Global warming is a very real problem and it needs to be addressed. And we damn well know this current administration is going to do dick about it. But when looking for a leader on this issue should we really turn to this guy?:



So the guy with the fucking Hummer cares about our air quality? I've got one suggestion for the first step he could take: QUIT DRIVING THE HUMMER!

Seriously, this is one of the things that pisses me off about my fellow Americans. They claim to care about the environment and think we should do something about it, as long as they aren't the ones who have to make any sacrifice or alter their lifestyle at all. How many times do you think Arnie has taken the train between his home in L.A. and his office in Sacremento? Or do you think he's been driving his 10 miles/gallon Hummer up there? I've never once read in the news about any Arnold sightings on the L.A. subway either.

The first thing Arnold did as Governor of California was cut dramatically the cost of car license plates, in effect giving people more incentive to drive. And he cares about global warming? I'll believe that when I see something in the news about his multi-billion dollar plan to expand L.A.'s public transportation system. Until then, all his talk is nothing but more hot air adding to the problem.

Funny Ha-Ha

Gary Trudeau is still one of the best satirists in the world...

Sunday's Doonesbury

Random Thoughts

Sandra Day O'Connor is stepping down . We are so very screwed. At least if it were Rehnquist we would just be replacing one right-wing nutjob with another. Now a moderate gets replaced by that nutjob instead.

Oh, and when Rehnquist does retire, here's a chilling thought: Chief Justice Scalia.

Kenny Rogers (the baseball player, not The Gambler) went loco on some poor cameraman just doing his job and shoved the guy and tried to bust up his camera. In the aftermath his idiot manager is saying things like "he's frustrated, that's not the Kenny Rogers I know". Oh bullshit. Let's please remember that all of these jocks in pro sports are the same assholes who dunked kids' heads in toilets and shoved them in lockers during high school. A bully is a bully.

Have you seen those BP commercials that try to paint them as some environmentally friendly oil company? Do you hate them as much as I do? Every time I have to see that stupid woman compare giving up your car to not having chocolate I want to scream. I just want to smack her so much. She's only shot from chest up in the ad. I'm guessing it's because her ass won't fit in the frame because of all the chocolate and driving too much.
And that one with the fucking Yuppie woman with her kids in the park going on and on how oil companies should have good air quality standards, even "better than the EPA standards" she says. What she probably isn't telling you is that she got to the park from her house five blocks away in her 12/mpg SUV that's just out of camera range. Typical American, always somebody else's job to make sure we have a clean environment.

Robert Novak. This asshole reveals the name of a CIA operative as political payback for her husband being critical of Bush, and other reporters are going to go to jail over it? Word in Washington is that he has already given the Feds the name of his "confidential" informant, to keep his ass out of jail. As Jon Stewart has said several times, what a douchebag.

I didn't think it was possible to hate Tom Cruise anymore than I already did. I was wrong.

I read a recent interview in the Boston Globe where Lindsay Lohan refers to a recent role as "empowering for girls". The Movie she's talking about? Herbie: Fully Loaded.

Like Their Falling Prices...

John Walton died yesterday after crashing his experimental, ultralight aircraft, otherwise known as billionaire-guy diversion toy. He's the middle son of Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton. Wal-Mart's PR guys are already in full gear talking about what a great guy he was and all he did for charity and his awards from Vietnam blah blah blah. And while the mainstream media buys into it and praises the life of a guy they didn't even know about before today, just remember a few things when wading through the bullshit on CNN and FOX.

The big thing they talk about is his work "to help to educate poor children" by pushing for school vouchers. Translation: He wanted to get rid of public schools.

Walton was the 11th richest person in the world, tied with his youngest brother behind his older brother and ahead of his mom and sister. And how did this Republican-loved family get to be this rich? Hard work? No. They inherited it, every single one of them. These are the people the conservatives want to save from the estate tax. And the capital gains tax.

While he had a net worth of $18.2 billion for doing nothing more than being born into the right family, most Wal-Mart employees cannot afford the company health insurance and many are poor enough to be eligible for food stamp assistance even though they work full time for the richest company on the planet.

A lot will be made in the press about what he has done for kids through the charity he runs for the Walton Family. What they won't mention is the fact that he sits on the board of a company that makes billions off of products made with child labor. If he really cared about kids he could have started with them.

They will talk about what a nice guy he was and march out some "regular employees" to talk about how nice and ordinary he was. They probably won't mention his company's efforts over the years to suppress workers' rights and wages, or all of the union busting so they won't have to pay people an extra 50 cents an hour. If this guy was so nice, why didn't he use his influence as a board member and one of the biggest stock-holders to help those regular employees? He could have stood up in front of the board and said "Hey, $8 billion net profit a year is good and everything, but what if we made $4 billion instead and used all that extra money to give our employees full benefits and a couple of more dollars an hour and made sure all of our suppliers paid fair wages and didn't use child labor? And we'd all still be rich as piss anyway."

He could've, but he didn't.

So while Wal-Mart employees around the world were plugging away for their measly paychecks and making him more billions, John-boy was goofing off with his dangerous rich-boy hobby on a Monday afternoon. The rest of us should be so lucky.

Fuck him.

Common Ground

With all the heated feelings these days between people of different political beliefs I'm always looking for common thoughts and ideas with people that I normally have major disagreements. While reading the paper yesterday I had one of those "common ground" moments. There was an article about Billy Graham's upcoming crusade in New York City and I came across this:

''I look forward to death," Graham said at a press conference ahead of his three-day New York crusade, set to begin Friday. ''I look forward to seeing God face to face."

I thought to myself, "What a coincidence. I'm looking forward to Billy Graham dying too."

See? We can all agree on something.