:(

As bad as it is for those against the war, it's so much us worse for these people. Especially this guy, who shouldn't even have to be there.

I'm Sick, Doctor

Sick of you.

I really can't get past this whole "Senator Frist breaks from Bush on stem cells" garbage. It's just that: garbage.

This guy has zero conviction.

Are you aware he was once a democrat, but then an opportunity opened up in the Republican Party, so he took it? Yeah, that's true.

Now he's the leader of the Senate, a position once held by Lyndon Johnson. Unbelievable. I guess I could say that about a lot of these people and positions.


Anyway, Senator Hillary Clinton never renounced faith, or claimed to not be a person of faith, but as soon as she mentions her faith the talking heads come screaming, "She's moving to the middle! She's moving to the right! Since when does Hillary Clinton care about faith?"

When didn't she? Marriage, according to all these conservatives, is an institution that cannot be compromised. Every time I hear Senator Santorum talk about the institution of marriage he mentions God as well, as if God has something to do with it. Well, when it came to marriage it seems Hillary Clinton was one of the only people in history who was publicly humiliated by her husband, but maintained the vows of her "holy matrimony!"

But when she speaks of religion, of course she's moving to the right. Of course.

However, for Senator Frist, who voted with President Bush on his stem cell policy, and now moves away, it's not like that at all. Actually, maybe it will be, and maybe the media will make that point, but it won't matter to the people who support Senator Frist. The brainless morons who don't care about hypocrisy.

Nothing has happened in the realm of stem cell research since Bush's bill that would lead Senator Frist to feel differently about the science. The only progress made is some states (CA/NJ) have used state dollars to fund the research. So is Senator Frist's show purely a financial one? Are they going to ask him why the shift? If they do, and when he doesn't answer, is it going to matter?

This guy Frist is such a joke it's unbelievable. Ooooooh, he's a doctor. Who fucking cares? I know a lot of doctors. In fact, one of the doctors in my health plan diagnosed my hernia as a cyst. She wanted to just cut it out. I tell her, "No, no, doc, I think you got it all wrong. Shit's a hernia!"

"Are you sure? What gives you the authority to make that call?"

"Don't worry bout that doc. I think you should put down the scalpel and run for Senate. That'd suit you more. It's a lot less painful for me, and you, to misdiagnose education budgets and cut the funding, then it is for you to misdiagnose me and cut my stomach open. These lawsuits against doctors are a bitch. You need to go do something about that too!!!"

My Bads

Like fellow conservative John Roberts who can't recall his membership in certain organizations, I too cannot remember things:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The State Department reversed itself on Thursday night and acknowledged that President Bush's U.N. ambassador nominee gave Congress inaccurate information about an investigation he was involved in.

The acknowledgment came after the State Department had earlier insisted nominee John Bolton's "answer was truthful" when he said he had not been questioned or provided information to jury or government investigations in the past five years.


"When Mr. Bolton completed his form during the Senate confirmation process he did not recall being interviewed by the State Department inspector general. Therefore his form as submitted was inaccurate in this regard and he will correct the form," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said.

Earlier, Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware said he had information Bolton was interviewed as part of a State Department-CIA joint investigation on intelligence lapses that led to the Bush administration's pre-Iraq war claim that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger.

Btw, what's the deal on Karl Rove and Tom Delay? There names have floated waaaaaaay off the front page, while some missing girl in Aruba is the topic of multiple shows.

Ahh, but why should there be news about Tom Delay when all he's doing is shit like this!

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - House Majority Leader Tom DeLay quietly slipped into the energy bill a $1.5 billion fund for oil and natural gas drilling research that will benefit an energy consortium based in his home district, a California Democrat said on Wednesday.

The measure was criticized as a "giveaway to one of the most profitable industries in America," by Rep. Henry Waxman, who demanded that the fund be dropped from the legislation before a House vote on the energy bill on Thursday.

Waxman said the $1.5 billion fund for ultra-deepwater drilling was added to the final energy bill this week after House and Senate negotiators called a halt to any more amendments. The 30-page measure appeared in the text of the energy bill after Texas Rep. Joe Barton had officially ended the House and Senate conference committee to combine legislation passed by each chamber, he said.

Members of the consortium, Research Partnership to Secure Energy for America, include Halliburton Co., Marathon Oil Corp. and several universities, according to the group's web site.

He's a good man, that leader of the Republican Party.

Ohhhh

My move to the Middle:

WASHINGTON, July 29 - In a break with President Bush, the Senate Republican leader, Bill Frist, has decided to support a bill to expand federal financing for embryonic stem cell research, a move that could push it closer to passage and force a confrontation with the White House, which is threatening to veto the measure.

Mr. Frist, a heart-lung transplant surgeon who said last month that he did not back expanding financing "at this juncture," announced his decision this morning in a lengthy Senate speech. He said that while he had reservations about altering Mr. Bush's four-year-old policy, which placed strict limits on taxpayer financing for the work, he supports the bill nonetheless.

"While human embryonic stem cell research is still at a very early stage, the limitations put in place in 2001 will, over time, slow our ability to bring potential new treatments for certain diseases," Mr. Frist said. "Therefore, I believe the president's policy should be modified."

His speech received the approval of Democrats as well as Republicans.

When Hillary Clinton simply praises God it's a shift to the right, but when Bill Frist breaks from the President's stance on something like stem cell research it's not a move to the left. No, no, not at all.

I guess Frist is starting his run for President early.

See, Senators don't make good Presidential candidates, and neither do assholes, which is a double whammy for Frist.

The EPA, Working For You

Check it:

DETROIT, July 27 - With Congress poised for a final vote on the energy bill, the Environmental Protection Agency made an 11th-hour decision Tuesday to delay the planned release of an annual report on fuel economy.

But a copy of the report, embargoed for publication Wednesday, was sent to The New York Times by a member of the E.P.A. communications staff just minutes before the decision was made to delay it until next week. The contents of the report show that loopholes in American fuel economy regulations have allowed automakers to produce cars and trucks that are significantly less fuel-efficient, on average, than they were in the late 1980's.

Releasing the report this week would have been inopportune for the Bush administration, its critics said, because it would have come on the eve of a final vote in Congress on energy legislation six years in the making. The bill, as it stands, largely ignores auto mileage regulations.

The executive summary of the copy of the report obtained by The Times acknowledges that "fuel economy is directly related to energy security," because consumer cars and trucks account for about 40 percent of the nation's oil consumption. But trends highlighted in the report show that carmakers are not making progress in improving fuel economy, and environmentalists say the energy bill will do little to prod them.

Coincidentally, the Bush Team released it's own counter proposal to Kyoto today, with the hope the News would bundle all of this stuff together. Of course, Americans, not able to handle one, let alone three stories about the environment, and energy in one day, wouldn't notice who it is the Bush team really represents.

So, What You're Telling Me Is...

This heralded Iraqi fighting force cannot even protect a handful of diplomats, let alone the nation?

More good times.

Party of the Prehistoric

Science!

For several years scientists have been finding fossilized embryos of dinosaurs from 80 million to 100 million years ago. They have now uncovered several 190-million-year-old dinosaur embryos, the oldest ever found.

The discovery is being reported Friday in the journal Science by a team of paleontologists headed by Robert Reisz of the University of Toronto. The fossils were actually excavated in 1978 in South Africa, but it has taken this long to expose the embryos from the surrounding rock and eggshell and then interpret the tiny remains.

President Bush has given the green light to conduct research on all the existing dinosaur embryos, but said no research could be done on future dinosaur embryos.

This could cause a split in the party.

Dem Folks Love Dem Guns

Too bad those "Dems" don't.

Senate Republicans on Tuesday moved the National Rifle Association's top priority ahead of a $491 billion defense bill, setting up a vote on legislation to shield firearms manufacturers and dealers from lawsuits over gun crimes.

Completion of the defense bill, which the Senate had been debating for a week, will now be delayed until fall. Democrats were incensed.

"What's happening on this gun liability bill is really despicable," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif. "To put that ahead of the defense bill, I think, is the most distorted priorities I can possibly conceive of."

On a 66-32 test vote, sponsors of the gun bill showed they have more than enough support to prevent opponents from defeating it with a filibuster.

"The president believes that the manufacturer of a legal product should not be held liable for the criminal misuse of that product by others," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan. "We look at it from a standpoint of stopping lawsuit abuse."

The bill could eat up much of the Senate schedule before lawmakers leave at week's end for a monthlong vacation. The House passed a similar bill last year but has taken no action on it this year.

Congress was on the verge of passing the bill a year ago when the NRA abruptly asked Craig, a member of the association's board of directors, to withdraw it after gun opponents amended it to extend an expiring ban on assault weapons. A pickup of four GOP Senate seats in last November's election emboldened gun rights supporters to try again, confident they can block Democratic attempts to attach an assault weapons ban.

Why do they even manufacture assault weapons? Why do we allow them to even sell assault weapons? They're called "assault weapons!" They're made to "assault." Who is legally being assaulted these days?

I'll tell you who: hoodlums on the streets, that's who. The gun manufacturers don't care, and neither do many of the people who support this bill, about those who die on the streets. Of course, if a Repulican Senator's daughter gets mistakenly shot, then he'll change his tune. Sorta like the Republicans who don't believe that mental health problems are serious, until Senator Pete Domenici's family has to live with the problem. NOW IT'S HIS BIG BIPARTISAN ISSUE!

As for guns in general, I really don't care. Buy your guns. Live in your sticks. Have your 9 your old pull one out of the case and blow his head off. I don't really care. There are too many other things for me to care about than the moron who actually owns a gun, and allows his children to get their hands on it.

I need to know why "assault weapons" are legally sold aside from gun manufacturers making cash. But it's the abortion doctor who is part of the "industry of death..."

Do You Speak "Fag?"

Great stuff:

The Federal Bureau of Investigation's backlog of untranslated terrorism intelligence doubled last year, and the time it takes the bureau to hire translators has grown longer, officials said Wednesday.

None of the backlogged material came in what the bureau considered its highest-priority investigations, Glenn A. Fine, the inspector general at the Justice Department, told the Senate Judiciary Committee, in releasing the findings of a new report by his office.

Still, Mr. Fine said the F.B.I. "has no assurance" that some 8,300 hours of untranslated material does not include information that could be critical to terrorism investigations.

So it was probably a good thing the military dismissed linguists for being gay.

This country rules!

THE Story

I've been waiting for this to break. Now, if it were Clinton:

Last summer, just after the Democratic convention, then-Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge issued another of his many Code Orange terror alerts. The secretary-who-cried-terrorist was facing increasing criticism for politicizing the terror warnings in the months before the presidential election, so this time he did something different. Secretary Ridge gave the public details, and lots of ‘em.

“Reports indicate that Al Qaeda is targeting several specific buildings,” Ridge said at an August 1, 2004 press conference, “including the International Monetary Fund and World Bank in the District of Columbia; Prudential Financial in Northern New Jersey; and Citigroup buildings and the New York Stock Exchange in New York.”

Those details were enough for the New York Times, in less than twenty-four hours, to uncover and break the rest of the story. The Times reported on August 2 that US officials had announced the terror alert after receiving hard evidence that Al Qaeda was targeting New York and DC financial centers. The evidence came from the laptop computer of Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan, the Times said, an Al Qaeda operative arrested in Pakistan several weeks prior who was now working as a US mole inside Al Qaeda. That’s when all hell broke loose.

While it remains unclear who spilled Khan’s name—the Americans blame the Pakistanis, and vice versa—the Times story created a panic in English and Pakistani law enforcement circles. Khan’s Al Qaeda buddies in both countries, upon learning that their friend was a double agent, quickly went into hiding. Both British and Pakistani officials were “furious” with the Americans for helping to unmask their spy, according to the New York Daily News, and the Brits had to launch a series of high-speed chases to catch Khan’s fleeing cabal. A senior Pakistani official told the Associated Press “this intelligence leak jeopardized our plan and some Al Qaeda suspects ran away.”

Now back to 7/7.

There was an important piece of information not revealed last August by either Tom Ridge or the Times. As ABC News reported after the London bombing, Khan’s laptop not only contained information about US financial centers, but also evidence that Al Qaeda was planning to target the London Tube. ABC, of course, forgot the clincher: How Bush’s leaky goon squad sabotaged a multinational operation to thwart what would ultimately become the successful London bombings of July 7, 2005.

Beats a missing blonde chick any day.

What's the day count on that missing blonde girl in Aruba, or wherever she is?

Namean?

For without them (And TDerl) I don't know how I'd get through the day!

DMX : The Fight in the Dog
By Amanda Diva

DMX is the last of a dying breed in Hip-Hop – the unpredictable. These days everything from singles to beef has become formula concocted within boardrooms and color-by-numbers marketing plan. But, nobody gave the plans to DMX, the Yonkers-bred lyricist. And fortunately, if they did make him privy to what he’s supposed to do, he probably wouldn’t do it anyway. The Rap maverick is set to release his new album, Here We Go Again, but X is already expressing his mind state on producer Dame Grease’s “Gangsta Breed” mixtape. “The industry don't give a f**k about you/ The industry couldn't make a dime without you/ I'm sick of this industry s**t/ The industry playing you like a industry b*tch," he spews.

Yet, after once announcing his retirement and distaste for the Rap game, DMX is back. And the Dog is as vocal as ever with an opinion on Def Jam under president Jay-Z, the police, his record and his own capricious nature.

AllHipHop.com: A lot of artists like yourself are facing the situation of your album dropping at the same time they are doing jail time. Will you, like others use that as a marketing tool?

DMX: That ain’t marketing, that’s the police! Going hard on n***as for nothing nahmean? It’s like “driving while Black”, “walking while Black,” all them s**ts are felonies.

AllHipHop.com: But aren’t you not supposed to be driving at all?

DMX: Listen, that ain’t got nothing to do with nothing aight? If I ain’t break the law, you shouldn’t pull me over anyway. How do you know it’s me? My windows are tinted. Nahmean? I still got my name on the back of my truck. But you shouldn’t assume that it’s me driving!

AllHipHop.com: Why do you have your name on the back of the truck and you know the cops are watching you?

DMX: Yo, one cop told me-he pulled me over- cool brotha, I forgot his name. I wouldn’t blow him up anyway but, he pulled me over and he told me one precinct has a betting pool, a f**kin’ betting pool on who was gonna bring me in next. It was up to like $2,000.

AllHipHop.com: See, you should be ridin low, in a Celica or something!

DMX: F**k that! I go hard. I ride with the dog. Reach in here and try to turn something off if you want to muthaf**ka, you’ll pull back a nub.

AllHipHop.com: You don’t play around. How much of your amped energy is the liquor and how much is just “you”?

DMX: It’s just me, it’s just me. It’s all me. This is how I am. I’m just an amped muthaf**ka ya know what I’m sayin? POW! Bang a n***a, all that! You know what I’m sayin? You know what I mean?

AllHipHop.com: So tell me about your new album?

DMX: Ha! Typical X. Hot to death. It’s like, ya know, it’s a listener’s album. I got the bangin beats and all that - but I mean please, please listen, that’s what it’s for.

AllHipHop.com: So what should your audience be listening for?

DMX: The truth.

AllHipHop.com: What’s different on this album than on your previous releases?

DMX: Nothing. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.

AllHipHop.com: It’s been a minute since you dropped your last joint.

DMX: Yeah, but I walk the streets and it’s like I just dropped one. N***as is like, “Ya s**t is hot, ya s**t is hot!”

AllHipHop.com: What keeps you continuously dropping records and making new music?

DMX: Real life. I love music man. I just f**kin’ love music so I’m always gonna write. Whether I decide to give it to the world or not, I’m gonna write it. And I’m gonna capture it you know what I’m sayin’?

AllHipHop.com: So you don’t do this only for the bread?

DMX: S**t, if I did this for the bread I would quit a long time ago! It took me 13 years just to get signed yo! So if I did for the money I woulda been quit, like “You can’t be serious”. I never did it for the money. I did it cause I love doing it and I was pretty much the best at it. Like on and off the radio - the best at it, period.

AllHipHop.com: Tell me this, you’re at Def Jam…

DMX: Yup, Left Jam.

AllHipHop.com: “Left Jam”? Elaborate.

DMX: They carry n***as to the left. N***as let feelings get involved with s**t, you know what I’m sayin? It’s not business at the end of the f**kin’ day. It’s “I don’t like him,” and “He doesn’t cooperate,” and “He won’t have dinner with me.” and you’re like “Come on buddy, am I f**kin you? What the f**k is the f**kin’ problem? Why do I gotta be up in your muthaf**kin face every f**kin day?” But there’s a whole new system now and a whole new stuff.

AllHipHop.com: How does it feel having Jay now as a boss, when he was formerly your peer?

DMX: I don’t have a boss. I don’t have a boss. I honestly have to say, that whoever or whatever entity gave him that position, it’s putting a strain on our relationship. We have a good relationship. It’s a mutual respect. We came up together. We done had battles and got over it. We did songs together! We rocked together! And for them to put-it’s like they’re pitting us against each other. Typical f**king cracker s**t that they do. Typical s**t that they do to break a muthaf**ka down: “Here, I’ma put him against him, and we’ll see what happens. Either way, we win.” It’s hard man, but it’s nothing that I’ll let him do to influence my project. Nor do I think there’s anything that he would do, out of the respect that we have for each other to influence my project. We’re both artists. He’s cool as s**t. We have that respect for each other. And when we say “What’s up?” and “How you been?” it’s real. It’s not dick riding s**t. No industry n***a to another. It’s “What up, dog? How you been man!?” Namean? About 15 years ago, we was rockin’ together on the pool table - goin’ hard! So it’s like, it’s real s**t! But the fact that they set it up like that then make me the first major project- I don’t like the way they did that. But I’m not gonna change what I do. And I’m not gonna let anybody interfere with what I do.

AllHipHop.com: Speaking of Jay, there were rumors that you had also retired from the game, but now you’re back. What made you leave, and what sparked your return?

DMX: I did announce that I was walking away from the industry because I got tired of dealing with fake ass niggas and I knew that if I kept dealing with these muthaf**kas I was gonna end up putting somebody in the dirt, you know what I’m saying? I was gonna end up f**king somebody up. So before I did that, I said, “You know what, I’ma walk away,” because this ain’t the industry I came in to. It ain’t the industry that I fell in love with. It ain’t the industry that I wanted to be a part of. It’s some other s**t. It’s about money. It’s being manipulated. And y’all niggas don’t even have talented muthaf**kas making it right now. Y’all n***as are making artists. God makes artists! Y’all n***as are playing God right now! Y’all making and creating artists and s**t and saying, “If I play the record a thousand times a day muthuf**kas will like it.” It’s like if you give a muthaf**ka nothing but bulls**t to eat, he’s gonna learn to enjoy it. Ya know I’ll throw a lil’ gravy on it-they gonna learn to enjoy the bulls**t. In the absence of the truth, bulls**t will prevail. So I got tired of dealing with it you know what I’m saying. So I stopped. And I called Mase, ‘cause I know my true calling in life is to become a pastor.

I decided I was gonna be a pastor. So I said, “F**k it, I’ma walk away from this s**t and I’ma just, “Alright Lord I’m ready.” And I waited, and I waited.

AllHipHop.com: What were you waiting for?

DMX: You know, for him to give me a sign. So, I called Mase. Powerful word in that brotha. I hit him and I’m like, “Yo dog, wassup man? God ain’t ready for me.” He said, “Yo, he gave you a talent for a reason and I mean what gives you the right to turn your back on that talent just because you gotta deal with fake muthaf**kas? N***a, he done put you through worse than that and it was nothing. You looked forward to that!” I used to look forward to it. Like when I was robbing n***as and I used to look forward to seeing fake muthaf**kas, those was the easiest n***as to get. It’s like, what gives me the right to turn my back on my talent, on my God given gift. Just cause I gotta deal with a lying muthaf**ka or anotha one talking s**t. Nothing gives me the right. I just gotta start bangin ya’ll muthafuckas around like [sound effects of beating someone up] I said, “Yo. F**k it. That’s what I’m gonna do. I’m going hard.”

AllHipHop.com: I think it’s safe to say people have been missing that talent.

DMX: You know what? That’s another thing. Everywhere I went, “Dogs the streets miss you!” “Dog the hood needs you!” I was like, “Aight, I gotta do it. I gotta do it!” I love the people.

AllHipHop.com: The people feel you, but you get your share of negative of press…

DMX: Believe enough of what you hear, and half of what you see.

AllHipHop.com: What do you think is the biggest misconception about you?

DMX: I really don’t even know, because I don’t pay attention. If a muthaf**ka don’t say it to me, he don’t mean it. N***as talk s**t all day, around corners, under tables and all that extra s**t, but if they don’t bring it to me they don’t mean it. You know what I’m sayin’?

AllHipHop.com: Were you always like that, or did the game condition you to be that way?

DMX: Nah, I’ve always been like that. ‘Cause that’s some sucka s**t. If I got something to say about a n***a I’m a bring it to him. Like, “You listen. You p*ssy”. Straight up. I bring it to n***as, “Yo, f**k you.” All that talking around b*tches, that s**t is some sucka s**t. I ain’t got time for that. If you mean it let me know you mean it. And it’ll be what it is.

So Sad

In other words, we lied, again:

BAGHDAD (CNN) -- The U.S. military expressed regret Monday for issuing news releases about two separate attacks in Iraq that included almost identical quotes attributed to an unidentified Iraqi.

In both statements, the military quoted an Iraqi calling the attackers "enemies of humanity" and vowing to "take the fight to the terrorists," the latter an expression President Bush frequently has used in speeches.

In the first news release, issued after a July 13 Baghdad bombing that killed mostly youngsters, an unidentified Iraqi spoke of terrorists attacking "the children."

In the second release, sent out after an attack Sunday near a police station in the capital, an unidentified Iraqi referred to strikes on "the ISF," or Iraqi Security Forces.

Task Force Baghdad with the Army's 3rd Infantry Division released both statements.

After the media contacted officials Sunday on the similarities, the military reissued the latest release without the quote.

"Task Force Baghdad Public Affairs regrets the confusion regarding two press releases issued in support of our operations July 24," said a statement Monday.

It really is so sad our military just makes up stories so the Bush supporters can feel better about the war.

Why would people care about these lies when they didn't care about the fake letters being written on behalf of soldiers, claiming that Iraq's chocolate river, and trees with candy canes were so sweet.

Please

Someone call Sean Hannity and ask him to tell us about the time has making fun of Al Gore for speaking about Global Warming on the coldest day of the year. HA!

Sometimes You Have to Ask?

Why does our government give tax breaks to energy companies that have been raking in the profits over the last few years?

Why does our government spend money on research into finding more oil and gas for oil companies while investigating research into the environment?

Why, oh why, oh why?

Hey

I didn't even know about this guy Paul Hackett until the Times article.

Help this guy get to Congress in Ohio's 2nd District.

Ahhh

As I mentioned yesterday, a better blogger mentions it today.

The Senate attacking the Prosecutor. Viva America! Fereedm!

Sunday, Monday, Happy Days...

No, no, I'm not referring to Happy Days because John Roberts' wife was wearing Mrs. Cunningham's outfit at the Bush announcement, or that they stole clothing from the Museum of the 50s located in Kansas to outfit their two children. No, I'm referring to the happy days ahead when Judge Roberts assumes the position (while making sure other men don't, at least not in the presence of other men).

Yeah for the first one!

As a young lawyer in the Justice Department at the beginning of Ronald Reagan's presidency, John G. Roberts advocated judicial restraint on the issues of the day, many of which are still topical, documents released Tuesday by the National Archives show.

He defended, for instance, the constitutionality of proposed legislation to restrict the ability of federal courts to order busing to desegregate schools.

Yeaaaaaaaah!

Then the second!

Judge Roberts, now on the federal court of appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, also argued that Congress had the constitutional power "to divest the lower federal courts of jurisdiction over school prayer cases."

Yeaaaaaaaah! Cheers to Jesus!

Wait, but there's more? Yes, there is more! Yeaaaaaah!

In another memorandum, he maintained that the Supreme Court, to which he is now nominated, overreached when it denied states the authority to impose residency requirements for welfare recipients.

This was an example, he wrote, of the court's tendency to find fundamental rights, like the right to travel between states, for which there was no explicit basis in the Constitution. "It's that very attitude which we are trying to resist," he wrote

Yeaaaaaah! Oh, to be as white as the Clevers, the Robertses, and the Niggars!

I, Chris Christian, Will Uphold...

It's amazing, Bush appointees all say the same thing, "My top priority will be the vigorous enforcement of our nation's (choose: Securities/Environmental/Energy/Commerce)Transportation/Military) laws..." Every single one of them.

John Roberts, no matter how he feels, or how he's decided, when it comes to Roe v. Wade, he won't try to overturn it, or a similar case. He will uphold the law as it is. That's what he'll do. I know this because he's going to say it. I can see the future.

If I was in Congress I'd stand right next to him and carve it in stone. Then I'd move it to the Supreme Court. Roberts won't mind, and neither will half the justices on the bench, since they seem to prefer carvings of stone in our courtrooms.

Christopher Cox, Bush's appointee to head the SEC, he too will enforce the nation's laws as they are. He won't move for change. He plans on doing exactly what former Chairman William Donaldson has done, at least according to the news. Cox won't answer detailed questions, and why should he have to, since he's going to do exactly what the last guy did?

Alberto Gonzales, he's going to do just what John Ashcroft did, and of course Ashcroft will uphold the laws he opposes. What about the laws that were newly proposed? What about invasions of privacy, like the sodomy case in Texas? What about Ashcroft's take on Affirmative Action? Was that upholding the laws as they currently stand?

Who could believe any of these clowns? Why appoint any particular person if they are going to just do what the last guy did? Why not get someone to just study the last guy so we can have an easy transition?

A hearing in Washington is nothing but a joke these days snyway, and scary enough, when Democrats in particular try to make it a serious event, like requesting information on a Supreme Court nominee (how dare they!), it's viewed as "politics as usual."

Amazing what a handful of conservatives have done to this country.

Watch this week as Conservatives take the high road, never pointing fingers, or making accusations with regard to Roberts, while constantly claiming attorney/client privilege, and how the rule of law matters.

The rule of law only matters to these people when they are trying to pull the wool over your eyes. When it comes to issues of war, matters relating to congressional leaders, then the law isn't so important any more to these folks, unless you can change it. Then it matters a lot.

Assure me that if I start a death pool one of them will die. If so, I'll start it.

How to Ruin a Sport by Greedo

Are the NFL holdouts being greedy by holding out for more cash? Yes!

Are the NFL owners equally as greedy for the way they treat their players? Yes!

I've heard people say time and time again that if you "sign a contract you should uphold the terms of the contract." That'd be a great point if the NFL owners actually upheld the terms of the contracts they offer (and the NHL with its new buyout clause may face this issue, but not as starkly), but we never really hear about them. We hear about greedy players like Terrell Owens, who is "holding out" for more money. How about the owners who are "holding out" on giving him more money?

In the NFL the players contracts are not guaranteed. It's an incredibly vicious sport, and players careers are cut short all the time. Many times a player can take such a beating throughout the season that he is putting future contracts on the line.

Owens' case, and all cases for that matter, is entirely unique. Owens went to the Eagles on the relative cheap, and because he did they went to the Superbowl. That earned the team a lot more revenue, and Owens is certainly due. He is without question the best player in the league at his position. There's no question who the best player on the field was in last year's Superbowl, and Owens was playing on a leg he broke about a month earlier! It was one of the greatest performances in sports history. He should have been the MVP of that game, even though they lost.

Tom Brady's contract was restructured because he won the Superbowl and the MVP. Owens' effort was as good, if not better.

Owens should now be paid like the MVP of his team, and Superbowl, for that performance alone. He showed you what he's willing to do as an employee. Had he gotten injured for life in that game he would be cut, and the money he was supposed to earn from his contract would not be there. It's time for him to get paid. Sounds ridiculous, but in the world of professional sports, Owens has earned his keep.

The same goes for a few other players, such as Richard Seymour. The year New England won their first Superbowl with Tom Brady, Seymour was the best player on tht field, and helped carry them through the playoffs. He was an absolute force. Seymour now wants more money. As a Defensive Tackle he plays one of the most dangerous positions in the game. He's constantly being rammed into and undercut by the biggest men in professional sports. I don't blame him for wanting to re-up.

Ty Law was a great player for the New England Patriots. Did they offer him a contract for his accomplishments, or are they letting him walk because he's not affordable, and won't produce as much in the future? Obvious.

Other players, like Javon Walker, do not deserve to get more money from their respective teams, in his case the Green Bay Packers. This guy has performed well for 1 season, and that's it. He's a free agent after next season. Had he even performed well for two seasons (with the best QB in the league), I could possibly understand his desire to renegotiate, but that's not the case.

Super Agent Drew Rosenhaus tries to get the most money he can for every one of his clients. I believe if he ran his practice differently there'd be fewer holdouts. If Rosenhaus wanted renegotiations when players truly deserved it I'm sure teams would more readily oblige, but he, and probably most of the other agents, try to renegotiate with almost every player who has one good year. Give me a break.

Now it's probably true that if Rosenhaus didn't treat every player like a god (because we know they all want to be) he may not get all these great clients. Explaining to these geniuses that he's working in their best interest by playing fair with the owners would be as difficult as explaining math to many of these guys, so I guess we'll just have to deal with the holdouts. It'd be nice if owners and certain agents actually had collegial relationships, and this stuff didn't have to happen every year.

You know, I'm not very religious, but I assume religion teaches people not to be greedy. Yet these people are some of the greediest motherfuckers in the world. I'm sure this won't stop players, owners and coaches from taking a knee and praying to their gods after the games. I'm sure a lot of pray for more money. Explaining irony to them is tougher than explaining math...

How to Ruin a Sport by Gary Bettman

For those of you who care about hockey, and the NHL, you cannot be too excited with the new rule changes going into effect. There's nothing worse than a league that changes its rules solely to create excitement, when the sport in question was obviously exciting before the changes.

Instead of addressing the real reasons why hockey is on the decline, the NHL has decided to change rules that made the game more skillful. I don't mind them making the rink bigger, or shrinking the size of the goalie's pads, but removing the two-line pass rule is really weak. The NHL should start enforcing the rules already on the books if they want the games to be more high scoring. They shouldn't be changing rules which force players to make passes, and use more team skill, as opposed to individual skills. Then again, what is an American sport if you can't highlight the individual over the team?

The rule I hate most is the end of game shootout between two teams, assuming they're tied afer overtime. There's nothing wrong with ties if they net you a point, especially at the end of the season when 1 or 2 points can really make a difference.

Commentators, and people like Commissioner Gary Bettman, claim "the shootout is the most exciting part of the game." This is their supposed reason for adding it to every game that's tied. WE CANNOT HAVE TIES! This is America! We must have a CLEAR-CUT WINNER!!! Newsflash: the shootout is NOT the most exciting part of the game, especially if it's something you'll see every night. The penalty shot is exciting when a player makes a great player, but gets impeded from scoring. The referee then decides to award the player the penalty shot. This happens randomly and rarely, and during the middle of a game. All these things add tension, and make those particular penalty shots exciting. The idea of having this every not is not interesting. I've watched it bore me to tears in soccer.

I can see it now, ESPN, showing highlights of the shootout that decided a game. That'll be the night's highlight, and that, of course, will be what the kids practice: the penalty shot. This, of course, will diminish their other skills, making the game worse at the lower levels.

Think I'm wrong about that? What does ESPN highlight when it comes to the NBA? The dunk? Yeah, THE DUNK. How many kids practice the dunk now? How many kids practice running with the ball, taking off from as far away as possible, to dunk it? Because so many players do this many of them don't know how to dribble. Because they don't know how to dribble the NBA has changed the rules on dribbling. Now every player carries the ball, and frankly, it's hard to watch. Hardly any NBA player knows how to dribble legally, and fewer know how to shoot.

Almost every team in the NBA runs the same offense, and this is it: Point guard brings it up, looks inside to the big man, kicks it inside, teams collapse on him immediately (the NBA allows the ZONE now. Another rule change created because the players lack ability), ball gets kicked back outside where a player attempts a three point shot. Player either makes it or misses it.

Another variation of this is when the player drives the ball into the paint, and kicks it back out to a player waiting on the wing to shoot, of course, a three-pointer (the other thing kids practice). This is the NBA. A league that has also changed its rules rather than enforcing rules that create team play. They focused on the individual as opposed to the team, and now it's an absolute bore. The NHL is apparently bent on following that model. I guess they too are bent on marketing the stars, instead of having a great sport. So lame.

Football is America's favorite sport. The ultimate team game, with flair as well.

There is a major difference between the NHL and the NBA when it comes to problems, and this one is unique to hockey: expansion into uninterested markets. Had the NHL not given franchises to Florida (twice), Carolina, Dallas, Phoenix, Anaheim, San Jose, and Nashville things would be different. The NBA has fans everywhere in America. You don't need ICE to play it.

Not having a fanbase/audience that plays the sport is huge. When Florida or Dallas is winning the fans come out, obviously. Everyone likes a winner, and people will pay to see their city winning. It's when the team isn't winning that it becomes an issue.

By not winning I don't even mean losing. I just mean not "the best" team. 16 teams make the playoff in the NHL. If the Tampa Bay Lightning make the playoffs every year, but are somewhere between 6-8 with no realistic shot at winning the Stanley Cup, no one is going to show up. Now lets just say they're ranked 8th one year, and do make a run. Sure, that generates short-term excitement, and people will show up for the second round, maybe third, but that will soon dissipate, and the next year no one will care. Why? Because no one plays the sport! No one has an attachment to the sport, or the players. This is not the case in cold weather cities where people play the sport. Even in the cold weather areas, hockey isn't THAT popular, but it is popular enough that marginal fans are still bigger fans than most of the southern hockey fans. Maybe because the grew up playing it in the street, or had kids, cousins, nieces, nephews, or friends that played. Whatever it is, the northern fans are much bigger fans, and more loyal.

Expansion was a good idea in Columbus, OH and Minneapolis, MN. Minnesota for obvious reasons, but Columbus was a great call as well. This is a top 35 market, with a sports population capable of selling out college football games in a stadium that seats 100,000 people, in a city with no major professional sports team. It's also cold there, kids can play the sport, and do. In addition, the Ohio State men's hockey team has been one of the best teams in the nation the last 5-7 years. The town can clearly support a team, and enjoys the sport. That was one good call. The rest, pretty bad. Most of these factors were not in place.

Another factor is Hockey is an incredibly expensive sport for a kid to play. It costs well over $250 for equipment. Basketball costs $15, assuming you already have sneakers. This matters. Hockey is not a huge sport, and yet they've expanded into huge markets, which of course costs huge dollars to compete with the 3 other major sports. People will not fork over huge dollars to meet these huge investments in order to support the franchise, especially when the kids don't love it.

Expansion was a major mistake. Instead of changing the rules, which may help slightly, but most likely will only damage the game, start shutting down these franchises. Unfortunately cities will pay a heavy price because of the arenas built, but the stupidity of cities/mayors/governors shouldn't hurt a great game. You took a gamble and lost.

I'll stop here.

Worthy

Worthy of being a Supreme Court Justice is John Roberts. Yet he can't seem to remember he was a member of the Federalist Society, or that he was part of their steering committee. He can't remember.

Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. has repeatedly said that he has no memory of belonging to the Federalist Society, but his name appears in the influential, conservative legal organization's 1997-1998 leadership directory.

Having served only two years on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit after a long career as a government and private-sector lawyer, Roberts has not amassed much of a public paper record that would show his judicial philosophy. Working with the Federalist Society would provide some clue of his sympathies. The organization keeps its membership rolls secret, but many key policymakers in the Bush administration are acknowledged current or former members.

This whole thing about getting hold of Roberts' notes and documents is a big deal. Simply put, Roberts' employers should have the attorney/client privilege. It would be bad if legal advisors felt they could not give the best advice possible because of the fear that one day their opinions are going to be held up to scrutiny, like the case right here. However, this is a completely different, and rare situation.

One of the primary reasons Roberts is being nominated is because there's no paper trail on him. Is it a coincidence that Gonzales also had little paper trail? Not at all. Bush is a secretive person, and apparently the only legal minds worthy of working for Bush, or on behalf the US Taxpayer, are the ones who have rarely made their opinions known to the public. The only legal minds Bush seems to trust are the ones who have operated under the cloak of his type of secrecy. It's sad.

In an extreme situation, what if Roberts had been a private practice attorney only, and his views were only known to George W. Bush, and the Federalist Society members who know him. Would it be right to confirm him to a lifetime appointment on the most important court in the world without knowing anything? Would it be right to assume he's both a fair and honest broker of the law when his appointer hasn't been? Not saying Roberts is dishonest because I'm sure he's not, but is the country supposed to just green light this guy and move on? This is a unique situation. We have a right to know everything.

Right now it seems Roberts' papers as a lawyer in the Reagan Administration will be released. The papers from the George H.W. Bush Administration will not be, of course, and the work he did for Kenneth Starr in the Clinton Investigation will also not be released, except those papers the Clinton White House sent to the National Archives, which I assume even I could view at this point.

The problem with this is Reagan was not an ideologue freak like George W. Bush, nor was he as far to the right as the elder Bush. I cannot imagine the paper trail from the Reagan era will be filled with ideological slants/advice/etc, and that's why they're releasing those. Times have changed, and with that so have politics, which make Roberts more recent work much more important. Aftearll, Bob Dole was a right-winger in the 80s. Today he's the voice of moderation. Things have changed!

If the Bush White House is willing to release the Reagan era papers, then why aren't they willing to release the George H.W. Bush papers? What's the difference when it comes to attorney/client privilege? Again, Roberts was working for another, so it's hard to say exactly what his own personal views are. Afterall, someone in the first Bush White House may have asked Roberts specifically to produce an argument against Roe v. Wade. That then becomes his job to do so, and not necessarily his own view. Then again, if chosen one could assume they'd choose the best person possible to make the case, since afterall this was the WHITE HOUSE. The likelihood such a view would be his view is really good, but we have to give him the benefit of the doubt. But again, why Reagan's papers, and not H.W. Bush's? The same thing could be said of the Starr investigation. There's a reason he was on the case, and I'm sure he wasn't upset about it.

Attorney/Client privileges should be uphead, but we're dealing with a lifetime appointment here on behalf of the most secretive White House ever. We may get some of the Reagan paperwork, but these people really can't be trusted. Afterall, the first month George W. Bush was in office they sealed Ronald Reagan's Presidential Papers, claiming they needed to review them. Both the Clinton and Reagan Families thought it was the wrong thing to do, but of course they did it anyway to protect half the people they planned on hiring.

Those papers, I believe, are still being kept secret. One has to ask how much time do you need to review them? If the law says the papers should be released after 12 years, and you need a bit more time, that's fine. But the law was crafted assuming 12 years was enough time. It shouldn't take another 5+ years to review the papers.

We all know these papers aren't being reviewed, but only shielded. And when it comes to John Roberts, and this White House, that's the point: Everything in secret, and behind our backs because they always know better. They're our parents.

Our right to know who John Roberts is clearly outweights the attorney/client privilege. If the senior George Bush cares about democracy, and the laws of this nation, he would give the Bush White House the green light on the paperwork. I'm sure the younger Bush can get him on the phone. It becomes a question of what matters more to Dubya: Our Supreme Court or his Father's legal dealings.

What do you think this Bush cares more about?

Gotta Love Him

Senator Roberts, making his way to the top of the human shit pile. He's going to investigate the Plame investigator.

Meanwhile, Hoekstra's counterpart in the Senate, Republican Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas, intends to preside over hearings on the intelligence community's use of covert protections for CIA agents and others involved in secret activities.

The chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence could hold hearings on the use of espionage cover soon after the U.S. Congress returns from its August recess, said Roberts spokeswoman Sarah Little.

Little said the Senate committee would also review the probe of special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, who has been investigating the Plame case for nearly two years.

America Rules! Spending tax-payer dollars, of course.

Fuck All Y'all

Reality bites, and will continue to for you dumb hicks (and all the other people unfortunately caught in your wake):

July 25, 2005

Toyota, Moving Northward

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Modern American politics is dominated by the doctrine that government is the problem, not the solution. In practice, this doctrine translates into policies that make low taxes on the rich the highest priority, even if lack of revenue undermines basic public services. You don't have to be a liberal to realize that this is wrong-headed. Corporate leaders understand quite well that good public services are also good for business. But the political environment is so polarized these days that top executives are often afraid to speak up against conservative dogma.

Instead, they vote with their feet. Which brings us to the story of Toyota's choice.

There has been fierce competition among states hoping to attract a new Toyota assembly plant. Several Southern states reportedly offered financial incentives worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

But last month Toyota decided to put the new plant, which will produce RAV4 mini-S.U.V.'s, in Ontario. Explaining why it passed up financial incentives to choose a U.S. location, the company cited the quality of Ontario's work force.

What made Toyota so sensitive to labor quality issues? Maybe we should discount remarks from the president of the Toronto-based Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association, who claimed that the educational level in the Southern United States was so low that trainers for Japanese plants in Alabama had to use "pictorials" to teach some illiterate workers how to use high-tech equipment.

But there are other reports, some coming from state officials, that confirm his basic point: Japanese auto companies opening plants in the Southern U.S. have been unfavorably surprised by the work force's poor level of training.

There's some bitter irony here for Alabama's governor. Just two years ago voters overwhelmingly rejected his plea for an increase in the state's rock-bottom taxes on the affluent, so that he could afford to improve the state's low-quality education system. Opponents of the tax hike convinced voters that it would cost the state jobs.

But education is only one reason Toyota chose Ontario. Canada's other big selling point is its national health insurance system, which saves auto manufacturers large sums in benefit payments compared with their costs in the United States.

You might be tempted to say that Canadian taxpayers are, in effect, subsidizing Toyota's move by paying for health coverage. But that's not right, even aside from the fact that Canada's health care system has far lower costs per person than the American system, with its huge administrative expenses. In fact, U.S. taxpayers, not Canadians, will be hurt by the northward movement of auto jobs.

To see why, bear in mind that in the long run decisions like Toyota's probably won't affect the overall number of jobs in either the United States or Canada. But the result of international competition will be to give Canada more jobs in industries like autos, which pay health benefits to their U.S. workers, and fewer jobs in industries that don't provide those benefits. In the U.S. the effect will be just the reverse: fewer jobs with benefits, more jobs without.

So what's the impact on taxpayers? In Canada, there's no impact at all: since all Canadians get government-provided health insurance in any case, the additional auto jobs won't increase government spending.

But U.S. taxpayers will suffer, because the general public ends up picking up much of the cost of health care for workers who don't get insurance through their jobs. Some uninsured workers and their families end up on Medicaid. Others end up depending on emergency rooms, which are heavily subsidized by taxpayers.

Funny, isn't it? Pundits tell us that the welfare state is doomed by globalization, that programs like national health insurance have become unsustainable. But Canada's universal health insurance system is handling international competition just fine. It's our own system, which penalizes companies that treat their workers well, that's in trouble.

I'm sure that some readers will respond to everything I've just said by asking why, if the Canadians are so smart, they aren't richer. But I'll have to leave the issue of America's comparative economic performance for another day.

For now, let me just point out that treating people decently is sometimes a competitive advantage. In America, basic health insurance is a privilege; in Canada, it's a right. And in the auto industry, at least, the good jobs are heading north.

E-mail: krugman@nytimes.com

Holy National Review

One of the mose conservative publications in the world asks:

The Senate faces a momentous decision in deciding whether to confirm John Roberts as Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s successor on the Supreme Court. Roberts would have great power to determine whether the death penalty will be curtailed or expanded, how the war on terrorism will be fought, which regulations of abortion will be allowed, whether same-sex marriage will be the law of the land, and what types of affirmative action governments may practice. He may not be able to set local traffic laws or to wage wars. But he will do more to determine how Americans are governed than any senator, or any five senators.

Yet it would apparently be wrong for senators to ask him how he would exercise this vast power. In our current political order, elections for the Senate may turn on the candidates’ positions on abortion even though senators do not set abortion policy. But the people who do set abortion policy are not to be asked how they will rule. It is permissible to interview a candidate for the job of Supreme Court justice. But the hirers are not to ask for the answers they most want to know.

That position, however absurd it may sound, has been embraced by the Republican party. Even before Bush named a nominee, most Republicans in Washington were saying that questions about how the nominee would rule on specific issues are off limits. They say that questions about professional qualifications are proper. Questions about “judicial philosophy” may also be proper, some Republicans will allow. But even they draw the line at asking the nominee about the implications of his judicial philosophy.

Republicans have adopted this principle for reasons of both high principle and low politics. The high principle is that if nominees must answer specific questions, it will compromise their independence. The political calculation is that it will compromise their confirmability.

If the goal is to get Roberts, or any future Bush nominee, confirmed, then a rule that allows only extremely general questions is obviously useful. . .

I heard the MODERATE John McCain on television the other day saying Roberts should not have to answer questions with regard to his job as a White House attorney because that would violate the Attorney/Client privilege.

The MODERATE John McCain, and his like-minded colleagues believe appointees for life shouldn't have to tell us anything, apparently. This is the MODERATE view...

The Courts

Here's why changing the Federal bench is so important:

The effort by the oil industry and its allies to win protection from lawsuits over MTBE pollution has been a major sticking point, with lawmakers from both parties saying it could leave communities saddled with cleanup costs. The immunity proposal, presented by Mr. Barton, would have created an $11 billion cleanup account financed by the industry and federal and state governments, but the plan was attacked by both industry representatives, who said it was too costly, and local government officials, who said it was inadequate.

Mr. Barton acknowledged that the proposal had foundered. He said he was preparing an alternative that he might try to add to the bill on Monday. He would not disclose details, but lobbyists, lawmakers and senior aides said one element would try to push MTBE lawsuits into federal courts, where the industry believes large judgments would be less likely.

This article is about the energy bill Congress is trying to pass. Representative Barton, Texas of course, wants the federal and state governments, aka, taxpayers, to share cleanup costs from MTBE pollution. I mean, I guess it could be argued that taxpayers do work for the companies that polluted the ground water to begin with!

Ask Bill O'Reilly who's looking out for you.

All the Rage

I'm sure you saw this story covered on your nightly news:

BAGHDAD — Three men in an unmarked sedan pulled up near the headquarters of the national police major crimes unit. The two passengers, wearing traditional Arab dishdasha gowns, stepped from the car.

At the same moment, a U.S. military convoy emerged from an underpass. Apparently believing the men were staging an ambush, the Americans fired, killing one passenger and wounding the other. The sedan's driver was hit in the head by two bullet fragments.

The soldiers drove on without stopping.

This kind of shooting is far from rare in Baghdad, but the driver of the car was no ordinary casualty. He was Iraqi police Brig. Gen. Majeed Farraji, chief of the major crimes unit. His passengers were unarmed hitchhikers whom he was dropping off on his way to work.

"The reason they shot us is just because the Americans are reckless," the general said from his hospital bed hours after the July 6 shooting, his head wrapped in a white bandage. "Nobody punishes them or blames them."

Nice

Just getting to know each other, 8 nukes later:

The U.S. and North Korean delegations met behind closed doors at the Diaoyutai State Guesthouse for about an hour and fifteen minutes, the official Xinhua News Agency reported.

The American Embassy did not immediately release details of the meeting, but the U.S. envoy, Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill, said earlier the two sides were "just trying to get acquainted, review how we see things coming up and compare notes."

Wait, what's this all about? The US will only engage in 6-party talks I was told. Slow down, this isn't talks. This is note comparing.

Bitches and Tricks and Games

Just kidding, you're not all bitches. In fact, most of you aren't bitches at all, but those who are, man, you're a bunch of fucking bitches (and sometimes hoes).

I'm a serial dater, I think. If a serial killer only has to kill like once or twice a year, then I am definitely a serial dater because I date at least twice a month. However, unlike the killer, I don't satisfy my desires, since I don't usually go the distance.

I date every way possible: meet in bars, on the street, in the subway, friends of friends, wing-man, online dating, you name it. I've done it, and do it. Surprisingly the online dates are usually the best. However, sometimes these women who claim to just want a certain type of guy, and no games, play as many games as every other chick I've met. Especially this one girl who recently blew me off. We'd been talking on the phone for about a month, and when it finally came time to meet up she didn't respond to my calls. What kind of shit is that? Cold feet about a guy you don't even know? She had more to do with making the plan than I did, and yet she blew me off. Classy. Top notch.

Girls are worse than guys, I'm convinced. Sure, there are asshole guys out there, but it seems girls are just a nightmare to deal with. Always the fucking games. Games are the worst. You can play them all you want, and believe that it'll lead to the guy wanting you more, but that's not what happens at all, at least not in the long run.

The guy will play "the game" but once he realizes he's in a game all he'll want to do is win it. Men like to win. Winning it doesn't involved "getting the girl." Winning is fucking the girl, or having the option to, and not calling her, solely because she had to play this stupid game. Now I'm sure guys play games as well, but fortunately most of my friends aren't those guys, so I don't have a ton of experience with that. If a girl plays a game with me chances are I'm not going to give a shit about her in the long run. If you're willing to do that to me it's just not going to work out, since I don't do that shit. If you like me, like me. If you don't, don't. Tell me. We can be friends, I swear.

The oddest thing to me is multi-dating. I don't do that well at all. That's when you're dating at least two people, but more like 3 or 4. It's really a bad idea. Some think it's good because you don't focus on any of them. There's certainly truth in that, but it's bad because you're constantly thinking one is better than the next, and you never really get to know one well enough. I'm currently going on dates with more than one person. However, I'm not trying to sleep with any of them, and frankly, I won't.

If I were multi-dating and slept with any of these girls it would mean I was really into her, and there's no reason to date the others. If I slept with the first girl, and then followed up by sleeping with the second, that would automatically mean I was done with the first girl. There's that chance sex could be so bad with the second girl that I wish I'd never done it, but if I was willing to that'd be enough to tell me the first girl was out. Now I can sleep with girls one at a time with no guilt at all, but once I'm dealing with more than one I can't sleep with any of them. It makes me feel like a scumbag, and we all know what I think about scumbags.

Well, that's enough for this weekend. I didn't sleep with anyone...again, by choice.

Hate to say it, but sleeping with people you don't care about is really a bore, unless, of course, she's some kind of super hot light skinned black chick. At that point you do care. You're actually in love.

Who's Winning?

This "War on Terror?" God, if that's not the dumbest fucking label I've ever heard for a war, mission, goal, or plan, then I don't know what is. The only thing that sounds dumber from the mouths of those who use it is when President Bush says the word "freedom." "Fereedum." "Freedome." It's hard to get that wet "Eff" like he does. "Fureedm."

So, we're obviously losing this war, if we can actually say someone is winning or losing. If the "War on Terror" began at a score of 0-0 then it has to be the case we're losing. Just look what's going on in London. I can't ever recall there being a suicide bombing in London. Certainly the IRA bombed locations throughout London, but it was not a suicide operation. Londoners are shitting fish and chips right now, for sure.

What's going to happen in London? An innocent Brazilian man on his way to work was gunned down for what? Having dark skin? I don't blame the officer who shot him in any way, unless this was his operation. More likely he's a foot soldier acting out orders to trail a man leaving said apartment building. If the officer felt threatened, or that others were, it only makes sense for him to shoot. Also keep in mind most British officers don't have guns, and using them is not a common thing. At a time of high tension this officer probably had a case of "trigger finger." It's unfortunate, and blaming someone is just retarded. The British are going to have to pay this man's family a lot of cash, and that'll be that.

Still, we're losing this war because things will probably get worse in England, and elsewhere. When you start reading and hearing the words of President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan, and Prince Turki al-Faisal, the Saudi ambassador to England, say things like England "gives these people sanctuary," or that the "generosity" of the English people allows these people to operate with "impunity", then you know we're in trouble.

Is England going to heed the advice of people whose countries are dictatorships? That'll be a good call, and scary enough it really could happen. English pragmatism will cause the government to crack down even further. Just this week the British government strengthened law enforcement's ability to track and kill terrorists, and then the next day an innocent man is shot! Who's winning?!?! Those responsible couldn't have asked for a better response.

It's really amazing the bang for the buck terrorists get from their attacks. The attacks on the World Trade Center were clearly the best example of this. Bin Laden was stunned those towers fell down. Even better he/they thought. Granted, the ante went up tenfold by them falling, but they don't give a shit. Everytime they commit an act of terror they get more than they ever could have dreamed. In Spain they got a President to lie about the attacks by blaming ETA. His successor then lost the race for President, and Spain pulled back from Iraq. In England the people are scared shitless, an innocent man gets killed, and every turban is wrapped just a little tighter. Who's winning?!?!

There were zero suicide/homicide bomb attacks in Iraq before the Iraq War. There were more than 65 last month! We're winning?!?!

There are clearly more terrorists now than before 9/11, and more attacks throughout the world, and all I hear about is how many we kill. Where do they all come from? Certainly things have to get worse before they get better, but under the current situation they're likely to only get worse.

The leadership necessary to end this "War on Terror" does not exist. It seems to me people are so far along the path of stupidity there's no way off it.

When are US leaders going to challenge the Saudi and Egyptian way of life? We talk about Iran, North Korea, and Iraq? Please. When are US leaders going to truly address the problems in Israel rather than give a free hand to Sharon?

The primary issue to me is not so much religious as it is economic. The US is the dominant player in the world market, and there's no sign that's going to change. People turn to religious fundamentalism because there are few options in life. They feel like the US treats them like shit, so they turn against us. If they had jobs, and lives to live things would be different. Considering the exploitative nature of US business, especially oil, I don't see this changing anytime soon. Especially when you have leaders who serve as enablers for these problems.

We need new leadership, one that truly believes in free trade, and isn't solely concerned with America being the best, forever. We should be striving to help all people win, and we're not. We've got stupid fuck flag waivers all across the nation who just don't get it. They all live for the now.

Seriously, who's winning? Certainly not us, and at the same time, not them. We're all losing this shit.