TexProdigy

Wanker of the Day

My Wanker of the Day is Neal Boortz. Neal asks, "Does Martial Law Mean You Can Shoot Looters?” I agree with Neal that those who are looting are pretty despicable.

Here is how the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines martial law: "1: the law applied in occupied territory by the military authority of the occupying power. 2: the law administered by military forces that is invoked by a government in an emergency when the civilian law enforcement agencies are unable to maintain public order and safety." The second definition applies to what is happening in New Orleans.

Neal says, "Now I'm serious here .. not just saying this for effect. Shoot to kill." Kill someone for stealing a television? Kill someone for stealing food? OMG! That has to be the stupidest thing I have read today!

Neal then says, "One person told CNN 'If it was wrong the police would be out there stopping it.' Amazing, isn't it. This dreadlocked goon seems to believe that any behavior the police don't immediately halt is somehow OK!" Hmm… "dreadlocked goon?". Neal, racist much!? Granted, what the guy told CNN was incredibly stupid. Some people honestly believe "It’s only illegal if I get caught."

I wonder if Neal feels the same about those who looted companies like Enron, Tyco, Adelphia, and MCI-WorldCom. Should Ken Lay, Dennis Kozlowski, and Bernie Ebbers (and their ilk) be shot? They looted millions of dollars from their companies.

In my opinion, those who loot should be arrested, detained, charged, and – if found guilty – go to prison. Last time I checked, we lived in the United States, not a Third-World country. We do not live in Saudi Arabia where those who steal lose their hand. Martial law or not, people deserve to be charged then face a judge and jury before the sentence is handed down.

Neal Boortz is simply a wanker.

I Hardly Recognise the Place!

I saw a video (via Crooks and Liars) of the devastation that Hurricane Katrina caused to the Gulfport/Biloxi area. The devastation is mind numbing. Ten years ago (Has it been that long!?), I was at Keesler Air Force Base in Biloxi, Mississippi, for my Technical Training. I returned a few more times for various other training courses.

The video I saw did not remotely resemble the Gulfport/Biloxi area I remember visiting. I remember going to the casinos along Highway 90 for all-you-can-eat food. I remember watching as the Beau Rivage was being built and thinking, “That place is going to be ripped to shreds if a hurricane hit.” I was not the only person who thought that. One time, when I rode the bus to the mall, a bus driver told me the residents of the Gulfport/Biloxi area all feared getting a direct hit by a hurricane.

It will take some time for the area to clean up and rebuild. Please go to the American Red Cross and donate to help the Hurricane Katrina relief efforts.

A Day Late…

President Bush is cutting his five-week long vacation short by two whole days (!) and returning to Washington D.C. to monitor the Hurricane Katrina efforts. Of course he could not cut his vacation short on Monday. Monday, he was too busy flying off to Arizona to celebrate Senator John McCain’s (R., AZ) birthday. Today, he was too busy in California with a World War II ceremony.

Commemorating the US victory against the Japanese is important, but the people in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama need help now. It is not as if Hurricane Katrina was a surprise. It just did not spring up overnight.

What Bush should have done is cancel his vacation on Sunday. He should have flown back to Washington D.C. Better yet, he should have flown to Louisiana, Mississippi, or Alabama to see the devastation for himself. Wait!! This is the same guy who sat for seven minutes staring glassy-eyed into space as planes flew into the World Trade Centre. This is the same guy who flew from Florida to Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana and then on to Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska before eventually finding his way back to Washington D.C.

I guess for President Bush photo opportunities are more important than leading the country during a time of natural disaster.

BTW - Donate to the American Red Cross

Cable Crackdown?

Salon has an article (subscription or site-pass required) about the some in right wingnutopia wanting to make the FCC restrict what is shown and said on cable and satellite television and radio. I guess my assumptions about conservatives were wrong. I thought conservatives were for limited government. Oh, I know! Conservatives are only for limited government when it comes to money.

Basically, what those in right wingnutopia want to do is make cable and satellite television and radio conform to the same restrictions that are imposed on over-the-air television and radio. The problem with that is that over-the-air television and radio lease their television and radio spectrum from the public and for that reason they are restricted from broadcasting obscene language and programming.

Cable television and satellite television and radio, on the other hand, are subscription-based. Traditionally, they do not have the same restrictions that over-the-air broadcasts have. If you see a movie on HBO or Showtime (especially one that is Rated R) and then you view the same movie on ABC, NBC, or CBS, the movie on CBS will cut scenes and replace "George Carlin’s Seven Deadly Words" with cleaned-up words (for example, "shit" becomes "shoot").

If those in right wingnutopia do not want to see movies with sex, violence, or foul language, then they can get rid of their cable, satellite television, and/or satellite radio. If right wingnutopia absolutely cannot live without their cable, then they can program the V-chip in televisions or enable parental controls on their cable or satellite set-top boxes. To me it sounds like right wingnutopia is lazy. Apparently, they do not want to (or cannot) program their televisions or set-top boxes. It seems they want the FCC to restrict everyone else’s because of their laziness or incompetence.

I subscribe to Sirius satellite radio because they play a wider variety of music and they are not limited in what they say on their talk and entertainment radio programs. A good example of this is Sirius’ two comedy stations Cracked Up comedy and Raw Dog comedy. Cracked Up’s language is clean and Raw Dog’s is not. In my opinion, Raw Dog tends to be funnier than Cracked Up because they are not restricted in what they say.

Here is my message to those in right wingnutopia: If you do not like what you hear or watch, get rid of cable, satellite television, and satellite radio. Do not force everyone else to conform because you cannot handle programming.

Sharon Hughes: Using Conservative Columnist-Physics!

Sharon Hughes’ column on MichNews.com distorts Cindy Sheehan’s words so badly that a funhouse mirror would appear normal. As a writer, I know that if you are going to quote someone, you should quote him or her properly or not at all.

Sharon Hughes does not do that at all. Here is what she writes Cindy Sheehan said:

America has been killing people on this continent since it was started. This country is not worth dying for...

Here is what Cindy Sheehan Actually said:

America has been killing people, like my sister over here says, since we first stepped on this continent, we have been responsible for death and destruction. I passed on that bullshit to my son and my son enlisted.I’m going all over the country telling moms: "This country is not worth dying for. If we’re attacked, we would all go out. We’d all take whatever we had. I’d take my rolling pin and I’d beat the attackers over the head with it. But we were not attacked by Iraq."

Notice anything? I guess conservative columnist-physics must have taken over and distorted space and time. How else could Cindy Sheehan’s quote have shrunk from 88 words to 19 words? Sharon Hughes basically lied to her readers. I sent an e-mail to Sharon. I requested she either correct her column, issue a retraction, or pull the column completely. How much do you want to bet that she will either blow me off or, if she does reply, try to turn it around?

Here is my letter I sent to Sharon:

Ms. Hughes,

I read your August 25th column, “Cindy Sheehan: What about her anti-American statements?” You write that Cindy Sheehan said, “America has been killing people on this continent since it was started. This country is not worth dying for...” I am writing you to request that you correct your column, print a retraction, or pull the column competely.

I went to the transcript of he speech. She said something similar to what you write. However, you did not even properly use ellipses to remove the words in between the statements. Here is what Cindy Sheehan actually said on 27 April 2005, at San Francisco State University:

Transcript available at: http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/Articles/Stewartrally.htm

"I take responsibility partly for my son's death, too. I was raised in a country by a public school system that taught us that America was good, that America was just. America has been killing people, like my sister over here says, since we first stepped on this continent, we have been responsible for death and destruction. I passed on that bullshit to my son and my son enlisted. I'm going all over the country telling moms: 'This country is not worth dying for. If we're attacked, we would all go out. We'd all take whatever we had. I'd take my rolling pin and I'd beat the attackers over the head with it. But we were not attacked by Iraq.'"

First, Cindy Sheehan said, "America has been killing people, like my sister over here says, since we first stepped on this continent, we have been responsible for death and destruction." She did not say, "America has been killing people on this continent since it was started." You grossly misquoted her.

If you read the quote properly, as it appears you failed to do, you would see that it actually is: "I'm going all over the country telling moms: 'This country is not worth dying for. If we're attacked, we would all go out. We'd all take whatever we had. I'd take my rolling pin and I'd beat the attackers over the head with it. But we were not attacked by Iraq.'" "This country" is referring to Iraq, not the United States of America. Cindy Sheehan is correct. Iraq did not attack the United States on September 11th. Nineteen hijackers and Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda terrorist network attacked us.

Cindy Sheehan’s statement is far from being anti-American. We all now know that Saddam Hussein had no stockpiles of WMDs. We all now know that Saddam Hussein had no concrete, lasting ties to Al Qaeda or Osama bin Laden. The reason the mainstream media (MSM) does not report on Cindy Sheehan’s “anti-American” statements is because they quite possibly read the entire transcript and concluded (rightly) that what Cindy Sheehan said was not anti-American.

Again, I am urging you to correct your column, print a retraction, or pull the column in its entirety.

Sincerely,

Pat Robertson: The Bart Simpson Defence Did Not Work!

Face it. Pat Robertson was caught saying something he should not have and told a lie to try to cover it up. On Monday he said:

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. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war, and I don't think any oil shipments will stop.... We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. 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.

On Tuesday, he lied about what he said. He tried to explain, "I didn't say 'assassination.' I said our special forces should 'take him out.' 'Take him out' could be a number of things including kidnapping." As if kidnapping were the more Christian thing to do.

I spent some time looking through the New Testament of the Bible yesterday. I could not find The Gospel of Assassination or the Letter to the Corinthians on Kidnapping.

Now, Pat Robertson apologises.

Is it right to call for assassination? No, and I apologize for that statement. I spoke in frustration that we should accommodate the man who thinks the U.S. is out to kill him.

He should have said that yesterday. He did not. Pat Robertson was acting like a little kid caught with chocolate all over his hands and face after raiding the cookie jar. He tried to use the Bart Simpson defence: "I didn't do it, no one saw me do it, you can't prove anything!" It just did not work this time. Pat did it. Millions of people saw him calling for the assassination of Hugo Chavez. Many news outlets proved that he said it - it is even on tape. Where is the condemnation of his statements from the right wing punditocracy?

**Crickets chirping.**

The "I Was Misinterpreted" Defence

Yesterday, Pat Robertson advocated the assassination of Venezuela’s President, Hugo Chavez. Today, Pat Robertson says:

I said our special forces could take him out. Take him out could be a number of things including kidnapping. There are a number of ways of taking out a dictator from power besides killing him. I was misinterpreted.

That is a lie. Here is a reminder for Pat Robertson from the Bible: "You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor." Remember that? It is from the Ten Commandments.

Psalm 101:7 says, "No one who practices deceit will dwell in my house; no one who speaks falsely will stand in my presence." Guess who is not going to get into Heaven?

I wonder if Jesus would approve of kidnapping, too? Somehow, I think not!

Sounding Like A Three Year-Old

I read Jesse Taylor's post on Pandagon about Dr. Mike Adams' column on Town Hall.

Go read it...

Here is my response to Dr. Adams:

Dr. Adams,

You may have been trying to be snarky, however, after reading your column, I am seriously wondering if you actually earned a Ph.D.

First, you call it "hoo-hoo-dilly!?" That sounds like something a three year-old would say. The proper terms are "penis" and "vagina." You are an adult. They are medical terms. You should use them.

Second, if you took a few minutes to do some research instead of sounding like a three year-old, you would know that during a female-to-male gender reassignment surgery, nothing is added. After administering testosterone, a male hormone, the clitoris tends to lengthen.

During a male-to-female gender reassignment surgery, certain parts of the male anatomy, namlely the testes, are removed. The penis is inverted to create a vagina.

Contrary to what you say, those who wish to undergo gender reassignment surgery are not mentally ill. You might want to check out the APA's web site before you write again. Simply removing the testes and inverting the penis does not make one less "violent and dangerous." Transgendered persons also have to take hormone supplements. Many other factors may have played a role in decreasing this person's "violence and dangerousnes."

Dr. Adams, I know you know how to do research. You do not get a Ph.D. without writing a research paper or two. You may want to do some research on the subjects you write about before you end up looking like a silly three year-old again.

Sincerely,

I feel really sorry for the people who take Dr. Adams' criminology courses at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington. I wonder if he sounds like a three year old when he s teaching his students.

**Update**

Mike responded to me. I was pleasantly surprised!

I actually looked at two versions of the APA's DSM. One said
homesexuality is a mental illness, the other said it is not. Can you help me
with my research, here? This is all so fascinating!

I responded to him. The last Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) that listed homosexuality as a mental illness was DSM-II, published in 1968. IN 1973, the APA removed homosexuality from the DSM. When the APA published the DSM-III, in 1980, it did not list homosexuality as a disorder. The DSM-IV, published in 2000, does not list homosexuality as a disorder. I hope I helped Mike out.

T-Shirts Available at Hot Topic

Eugene Volokh writes:

I've seen lots of assertions that it's a "myth" that gays and lesbians try to recruit others into homosexuality. Yet it seems to me that this assertion of "myth" is likely itself something of a myth, or at least quite incomplete.

He uses and eleven year-old (!) study to illustrate his point. Eugene also says:

If I'm right, the movement thus is trying to convert those who have a bisexual orientation but act purely heterosexually — or would act purely heterosexually, if we're talking about people who haven't started having sex yet — into also experimenting with homosexuality.

Okay. You caught us. The jig is up! On penalty of losing my Pink Card, here is our secret: We play a big game of Red Rover! We are pretty good at it, too – especially the lesbians. If the bisexuals break through the line, then they get to go on their merry way. If not, we convert them over to our side!

We even have "Recruiter" t-shirts available at Hot Topic. We also have other fabulous prizes available, but in order to hear what they are, you need to be recruited.

Home on the Range: Where the Deer and the Day Labourers Play

This past weekend I was in DFW visiting a friend and his boyfriend. My friend used to live in San Antonio - where I met him. Later, he moved to Austin to get a graduate degree. He and his boyfriend now live up in DFW where he works and his boyfriend works at a bar they own.

Their home in Dallas is simply amazing. It is all brick, has a swimming pool in their back yard, and is HUGE. I now know why my boyfriend wants a house. The condo we live in is nice, but it is a bit on the small side – and it does not have a pool in the back yard.

On Saturday, I got up at the break of dawn. What can I say? I am a light sleeper. I decided not to be a complete bum and decided to go running through the neighbourhood. I am glad I have a decent sense of direction, because otherwise, I would have gotten completely lost in Suburbia.

Since my friend’s subdivision is fairly new, many homes were in various stages of construction. One thing I noticed about the neighbourhood is that almost all of the homeowners I saw on my jog were white. The people who were building their homes, though, were Hispanic.

After my run and before everyone woke up, I read about the stupid actions of the Minuteman Civil Defence Corps of Texas. This is the group of wackos that is going to go into Houston to look for illegal immigrant day labourers. Now, according to the Houston Chronicle, they will be carrying concealed weapons as well as video cameras. These day labourers are the same kind of guys who were working on the HUGE homes in my friend’s subdivision.

I wonder how much day labourers and illegal aliens working at other jobs around the United States lower costs. I can only imagine that my friend’s HUGE home would have cost more had day labourers not been used. I do not think the Minutemen Civil Defence Corps of Texas will have much of an impact. Americans want things and they want them cheaply. The Minutemen may scare off the day labourers for a few days, but the consumer’s insatiable need for cheap stuff will prevail.

Even More Chickenhawks

World O’Crap has a good takedown of more chickenhawks. The two chickenhawks she takes down are from The Right Noise section of Human Events online. The first chickenhawk drivel, Frying the Chickenhawk Argument, is from Roger Custer. Roger says:

My recent appearance on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal included a caller who accused me of being a hypocrite for not serving in Iraq. I told her that I am fighting the battle of ideas on America’s college campuses.

The battle of ideas is tough! Roger has to watch out for intellectual land mines, be wary of sharp words and pointed criticism, and take care not to fall in the logic traps laid out by those on the college campuses. Meanwhile, in the real world, Soldiers and Marines are dodging bullets, ensuring they have enough armour on their Humvees to survive roadside bombs, and make sure mortars do not land in their tents. Yeah, fighting the battle on America’s college campuses and fighting the battle in Iraq are the same thing!

Roger further says:

The Left assumes that people must be involved in an activity in order to express an opinion about it.

Roger, no! All I am saying is that if you support the war as much as you do, go down to your local Army or Marine recruiter and enlist (don’t get a commission). Volunteer to go to Iraq. Volunteer to be an infantryman. My guess is that you (and others like you) would rather enjoy the comforts that America has to offer and let others sacrifice for you.

Now on to the second chickenhawk, Jack Langer. Jack is another writer for The Right Noise section of Human Events Online. Jack claims:

The argument is that only those who have served or are currently serving on the front lines have the moral authority to support a war.

Jack, Jack, Jack. That is not the argument. The argument is that if you support the war so much, why are you not enlisted and serving on Iraq? Last time I checked, the Army and Marines could use more troops on the ground. Maybe you and Roger could go down to the recruiter together (if you live in the same city).

Jack then says:

Aside from decimating the entire idea of civilian control over the military, this concept would have precluded some rather important figures in American history from serving their country--President Lincoln, for example, would rank among the moral pygmies without the authority to support a war.

As sz from World O’Crap points out, Virgin Ben Shapiro mad a similar statement:

By the leftist logic, here are some other "chickenhawks": John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Hancock, James Madison, Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson and Bill Clinton.

Virgin Ben, no! John Adams, Benjamin Frankin, Thomas Jefferson, John Hancock, and James Madison actively supported the American Revolution. They did not simply sit back and write from the comfort of their Virginia, Philadelphia, or Boston homes. Do you have to go back and take American History 101? Woodrow Wilson was a child during the Civil War. He was also the head of Princeton before being elected to the residency. Bill Clinton was, like you a college student. Maybe you need to go back and take History 102, too. Unlike you, Virgin Ben, Clinton did not support the Vietnam War. Had Bill Clinton supported the Vietnam War, I would have expected him to server in Vietnam, too.

Now back to Jack… Jack says:

The purveyors of the chickenhawk argument also fail to realize how inherently sexist, heterosexualist, and ableist this argument is - since women, homosexuals, and the handicapped cannot serve in the front lines, none of these people apparently ever have the moral authority to support a war.

Jack, you may or may or be aware, but women have been fighting in the Iraq war. They may not be "on the front lines" but they have fought alongside their male counterparts. Oh, just a point of correction. Homosexuals have fought in the Iraq war. Some, undoubtedly, have fought on the front lines. I personally know of several who served with honour and distinction. Where did the statement about handicapped people fighting on the front lines come from?

Roger and Jack totally miss the definition of chickenwawk. A chickenhawk is one who supports war, but is not willing to serve in the war him (or her) self. The argument is not whether only those who have never served in the military can support a war. The argument is that if you support a war, you better have your actions speak louder than your words. Until then, Virgin Ben, Roger, and Jack are all pussies who write from the comfort of their homes.

WWJA? – Who Would Jesus Assassinate?

Media Matters.org is an invaluable resource for debunking lies and misinformation that people like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly tell on their shows. Sometimes they highlight statements that make you say, "Whaaaat!?"

An example of the latter is what Pat Robertson said:

There was a popular coup that overthrew him [Chavez]. And what did the United States State Department do about it? Virtually nothing. And as a result, within about 48 hours that coup was broken; Chavez was back in power, but we had a chance to move in. He has destroyed the Venezuelan economy, and he's going to make that a launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism all over the continent.

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. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war. And I don't think any oil shipments will stop. But this man is a terrific danger and the United ... This is in our sphere of influence, so we can't let this happen. We have the Monroe Doctrine, we have other doctrines that we have announced. And without question, this is a dangerous enemy to our south, controlling a huge pool of oil, that could hurt us very badly. We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. 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.

Remember, Pat Robertson is the head of the 700 Club. He purports to be a Christian. Would Jesus advocate the assassination of a head of state? Here is what Jesus said:

38 "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' 39 But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well (Matthew 5:38-40).

As I remember, one of the Ten Commandments is "You shall not murder."

Pat Robertson, a hypochristian, also supported dictators and warlords in Liberia and Sierra Leone. Pat Robertson also needs to go back to history class. The Monroe Doctrine (from wikipedia) "proclaimed that the Americas should be closed to future European colonization and free from European interference in sovereign countries' affairs." Hugo Chavez, last I checked, was from Venezuela. I remember my geography. Venezuela is in South America, not Europe.

Also, the oil under Venezuela belonged to them, not us. If they decide not to sell oil to the United States, they can exercise that prerogative. I also know a little about economics. I highly doubt Venezuela will do that, because the United States is oil hungry. As long as the United States has a demand for oil, I am sure Venezuela and other countries will be more than happy to provide the supply.

Would Jesus approve of what Pat Robertson, as supposed God-fearing man, said? I doubt it.

Virgin Chickenhawks, Part II

I wrote (Virgin) Ben Shapiro regarding his craptacular article about chickenhawks. I have yet to get a response, I doubt I ever will. I did, however, via Attaturk of Rising Hegemon, run across one of the best reponses to Vigin Ben I have seen to date. "There's a word for people who rely on others to die for things they believe in - that word is coward. Substitute 'chickenhawk' if that fits." I chould not have said it better.

Druggie Chickenhawk (Part II)

I guess Rush is back on the oxycontin. Here is what he said today about Cindy Sheehan:

Frankly, I'm also fed up -- not fed up. I retract that. I'm weary, ladies and gentlemen, of even having to express sympathy. 'Oh, she lost her son!' Yes, yes, yes, but (sigh) we all lose things.

What!? Anyone who loses a child, even an adult child, is emotionally impacted. Parents expect their children to bury them, not the other way around. When parents lose their children in a war, they are hit especially hard. Having to bury a child has got to be one of the toughest things any parent has to endure.

Granted, we do all lose “things.” However, losing a child is not like losing keys or, in the case of Rush, his stash of oxycontin pills. Rush is an insensitive creep. Sooner or later people will see what a piece of crap he is.

Druggie Chickenhawk

On an August 15, 2005, Rush Limbaugh made the following statement:

I mean, Cindy Sheehan is just Bill Burkett. Her story is nothing more than forged documents. There's nothing about it that's real, including the mainstream media's glomming onto it. It's not real. It's nothing more than an attempt. It's the latest effort made by the coordinated left.

What does Rush mean? Does he mean that Army Specialist Casey Sheehan did not die? Well, Rush, you are wrong. Maybe he’s accusing the Army of lying about Army Specialist Casey Sheehan’s death. Maybe he’s saying Cindy never buried her son, Casey.

Personally, I do not know what is going on in Rush’s brain. He’s probably killed so many brain cells using oxycontin that he does not even know what he is saying most of the time.

Second, Rush has no leg to stand on when it comes to talking about anything regarding the military. During the Vietnam War draft he shirked his responsibility by saying his pilonidal cyst would keep him from serving in the military. For the record, a pilonidal cyst is a chronic infection of the skin in the region of the buttock crease. The condition results from a reaction to hairs embedded in the skin, commonly occurring in the cleft between the buttocks. The disease is more common in men than women and frequently occurs between puberty and age 40. It is also common in obese people and those with thick, stiff body hair. So, basically, he got out because of ingrown butt hairs.

So, we have a drug-addled, guy who shirked his duty to his country by serving in Vietnam because of in ingrown butt hair telling the mother of a fallen US Army Soldier that her story is nothing more than forged documents. That is rich!

Flight of the Virgin Chickenhawks

Ben Shapiro has a column up on Townhall.com. His argument is that the left claims only pacifists and those who have served in the military can speak on matters of national security.

You know, for someone who went to UCLA and is now attending Harvard Law School, Virgin Ben is so bloody dumb! What people like me are saying is that it is all well and good to cheerlead the war, but actions speak infinitely louder than words. From the safe Massachusetts confines of Harvard Law School, Virgin Ben can say anything he wants. Unless he actually goes over to Iraq, or serves in the military, in my mind he will always be the virgin chickenhawk.

Last time I checked, Virgin Ben is old enough to enlist. If he likes the Iraq war so much, he needs to have some balls and prove that his actions speak louder than his words. If he wants to have any legitimacy, he needs to get his happy little virgin ass over to a recruitment office (preferably Army or Marines) and enlist (six years would be best).

I agree with Tbogg – Virgin Ben is a pussy.

John Gibson: Nothing in His Noggin

On July 22, 2005, John Gibson must have been creaming his pants as he wrote "The tackle and kill team is incredible, if for no other reason than their bravery." Yeah, shoot first - ask questions later. That always works! Later, he writes,

Turns out he didn't have a bomb, and turns out he wasn't one of the four bombers Thursday. And if it turns out ultimately that he had nothing to do with anything, no doubt there will be hell to pay. But the police say he was linked to the terror probe, so let's wait and see.

Well, John, it turns out Jean Charles de Menezes, the Brazilian who was shot eight times (seven – not five – times in the head), was not linked to the terror probe. As John correctly wrote, He did not have a bomb and he was not one of the four bombers.

Now footage contradicts the British police version of what happened. In a super-suspicious manner "de Menezes entered the Stockwell subway station at a normal walking pace, stopping to pick up a newspaper before boarding a train and taking a seat." Walking! Picking up a newspaper! Boarding a train and taking a seat! I guess John Gibson views these as reasons to get shot seven times in the head.

And, by the way, John, "de Menezes was wearing a light denim jacket when he was shot seven times in the head and once in the shoulder." You mean he was not wearing a heavy jacket! What!? Further, "a man sitting opposite de Menezes saw a man boarding and firing his first shot from a handgun at the Brazilian's head from 12 inches away." What!? You mean they didn't tackle him? They were just the kill team, huh?

It seems the British police fucked up when the shot de Menezes. John is right about one thing – "there will be hell to pay." Nothing can bring back Jean Charles Menezes. However, his parents ought sue the police and British government to ensure something like this never happens again. Jean Charles Menezes' death could have been prevented if the British police had not been so trigger happy.

I think John "Nothing in his Noggin" Gibson ought to go on Fox News and immediately apologise to Jean Charles de Menezes parents for being a idiot and getting things so wrong. I guess when you shoot your mouth off before you have all the facts you look like the moron you are. I guess John was just trying to emulate the British police from the safe confines of Fox News’ New York studios.

Michelle Malkin: Playing Fast and Loose with the Facts

Michelle Malkin has been on a multi-day, go-nowhere, campaign against Air America Radio. She claims, through her source, Brian Maloney, of the Radio Equalizer, that Air America illegally received $875,000 from the Gloria Wise Boys & Girls Club in New York.

Just a disclaimer: I am a fan of Air America Radio. I listen to Rachel Maddow (who is IMHO, the smartest woman in broadcasting), Morning Sedition, and Randi Rhodes. I don’t listen to Jerry Springer, Al Franken, or Mike Malloy because I am either at work or doing something else in the evenings. On with the story…

So, here is what the New York Sun reports:

Gloria Wise is under investigation by the city's Department of Investigation for matters that include transferring $875,000 to Progress Media, former parent company of the Air America radio network, and to the club's director of development, Evan Montvel Cohen, who headed Progress Media.

Now, here is the important piece of information that Michelle is not passing on to her readers. Basically, she is not being honest with her readers; she is lying to them.

Piquant LLC, which acquired Air America from Mr. Cohen's Progress Media in May 2004, has agreed to pay $875,000 to Gloria Wise, without interest, in installments over the next two years.

Did you catch that? Like what happens to many other brand names in the US, a separate company now owns Air America Radio. Yes, Progress Media and Piquant LLC both start with "P". Maybe that is where Michelle got confused. Also, Gloria Wise transferred the money to Progress Media, not Air America Radio. Piquant LLC is practicing good business ethics by repaying the debt Progress Media owed. I am not certain about the laws in New York, but when a brand is bought, many times the debt gets left behind.

The reason this story has no traction is because nothing about it is sexy or exciting (except to Michelle). Remember, she is the same woman who said that the Japanese internment camps were the best things since sliced bread. I cannot help but wonder if she, as a Filipina, bears some resentment towards all Japanese for what the Japanese did to the Philippines during World War II. If that is the case, I wonder if she is not just a wee bit racist. Arthur Silber has more.

My advice to Michelle: Check out all the facts and make sure you have everything right before you go off half-cocked. Maybe then you will not look like a demon-possessed woman on prime-time television.

Bush: Meet with Cindy

Bush has time out of his ultra-busy vacation schedule to visit and bike ride with Lance Armstrong and go to fund raisers. Yet, he does not have an hour or two out of his incredibly busy five-week schedule to visit with Cindy Sheehan one-on-one. Is he that much of a dumb-fuck? (That was a rhetorical question.)

If Bush invited Cindy Sheehan to his “ranch” she might leave and tell all her supporters to go home. Oh, that would just be too easy, though. It must be easier to be like the Vancome lady (from Fox’s Mad TV) just have your bullet-proof SUV drive past the protesters, stick your fingers in your ears, and say, “La, la, la! La, la, la!”

I guess for Faux News and people like Michelle Maglalang Malkin to trash a woman who lost her son in Iraq. What have these losers lost? They haven’t lost anything (as far as I can tell). I propose we drop the whole lot of them in the middle of Iraq and see who makes it out alive. It can be the new “Survivor: Iraq!” The commentator who survives with the most limbs wins!

Fantasies aside, the simplest thing Bush can do is meet with Cindy. Is it that hard to do? Yet, Bush says, “I think it's also important for me to go on with my life, to keep a balanced life.” Yeah, unfortunately, Casey Sheehan will not be able to go on with his life. Casey’s mom, Cindy, just wants some answers. President Bush, take some time out of your vacation to answer her questions.

Tucker: Is It Vandalism or Terrorism?

Tucker Carlson (via John Aravosis’ awesome site, Americablog) said the bombing of the Greenpeace ship, the Rainbow Warrior, was an act of vandalism by the French and was "…impressive on France’s part." The bombing of the Rainbow Warrior was state-sponsored terrorism. France sponsored the bombing. The sinking of the ship also killed one person, photographer Fernando Pereira. France was forced to pay Greenpeace $8 million to replace the ship. Furthermore, France was forced to pay New Zealand $7 million dollars.

I wonder is Tucker thinks the bombing of the USS Cole was simply an act of vandalism. Were the recent London bombings simply and act of vandalism? How about the three planes that smashed into each of the World Trace Center towers and the Pentagon?

Tucker Carlson is a schmuck. During a 3 August 2005, conversation with John Passacantando, the executive director of Greenpeace, Tucker said, "I am not hanging up. I am returning the handset to the cradle…" Tucker, you dumb-fuck, when you return the handset to the cradle you hang up the phone.

I sent an e-mail to Rachel Maddow (rhymes with shadow), Tucker’s co-host on The Situation. She is Tucker’s liberal co-host. She deftly tears down Tucker’s arguments with logic and reason. I am an avid listener of her morning show "The Rachel Maddow Show." I have to download her show because Sirius no longer carries the show. Sigh. Anyway, I requested that next time the Greenpeace subject comes up, she ask him if other bombings are simply just acts of vandalism or if they are terrorism.

I wonder if Tucker would tell Fernando Pereira’s family that his death was simply an act of vandalism. Somehow, I do not think so. Tucker is just a bigh schmuck.

My Challenge to Conservative Commentators

Bill O’Reilly said, "If you’re a Christian, you know, there is no greater sacrifice [than] to give your life for someone else." So, Mr. O’Reilly, when are you going to go to Iraq so someone’s son or daughter can come home alive and safe? (Crickets chirp in the background.) Mr. O’Reilly, actions speak louder than words.

I wonder whether all the other conservative bloviators believe the same thing. When will they sacrifice their life for someone else? I doubt they ever will. Will they put their bodies where their mouths have been?

Here is my offer to the conservative bloviators (Hannity, Coulter, Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Malkin, and others like them on television or radio): I will sponsor one (1) conservative bloviator who believes everything in Iraq is going swimmingly. I will fly them to Qatar or Kuwait. From Qatar or Kuwait, they will travel (via taxi or some form of other public transportation) to Basra, Iraq. They have to spend one day in Basra walking around and interviewing everyday Shi’ite-Iraqis. They must spend the night in a local Iraqi hotel. The next day the conservative will travel (again, via taxi or some form of other public transportation) to Ramadi, Iraq. They will also need to walk around Ramadi and speak with ordinary, everyday Iraqis. On day three, they will travel to Fallujah. Again, they will interview Iraqis. Next, they will travel to Tikrit, Iraq, Saddam Hussein’s hometown. In Tikrit, they will talk to supporters and detractors of Saddam. On the fifth day, they will travel to Kirkuk, Iraq, and interview Kurdish-Iraqis. On day six, the conservative commentator will travel to Baghdad, Iraq. They will not be allowed to stay in or near the Green Zone. Finally, on the last day, they will fly home.

Since they think everything in Iraq is going well, they cannot hire bodyguards. I am not a rich man, but I will pay to fly them over (business class) to Qatar or Kuwait. I will pay for their hotels and transportation. All they have to do is keep up their end of the bargain.

Will one of the conservative bloviators accept my challenge? I doubt it. May be surprised. More than likely, though, they will continue to say all is well in Iraq and trash those of us who know otherwise.

Bad Advice from Focus on the Family

The following is a bunch of crap from Focus on the Family’s web page, "Helping Boys Become Men, and Girls Become Women: Is My Child Becoming Homosexual?"”

They say:

Evidences of gender confusion or doubt in boys ages 5 to 11 may include:

1. A strong feeling that they are "different" from other boys.

Um, of course they’re different from other boys. They like other boys. Duh! Besides, they’ll work harder, have a better sense of style, and will be like diamonds – a girl’s best friend.

2. A tendency to cry easily, be less athletic, and dislike the roughhousing that other boys enjoy.

We teach "boys don't cry" to boys growing up. This is just wrong. It forces boys to hold their emotions in and not express them. When they do, it is like a volcano blowing up. Maybe if boys were simply allowed to express themselves emotionally, they would be more understanding of others.

Athleticism is not a heterosexuals-only trait; this is BS. Gay people like sports, too. I can cite tons of examples (Rudy Galindo and Greg Louganis are two I can cite right now). Use Google to find the rest.

3. A persistent preference to play female roles in make-believe play.

From personal experience, I preferred to play with Legos and G.I. Joes. I tended to bend my sister’s Barbie’s legs in awkward positions and removed their head to transform them into monsters to attack my G.I. Joes.

4. A strong preference to spend time in the company of girls and participate in their games and other pastimes.

When I was growing up, I liked hanging around my guy friends. I had female friends, too. When I got a bit older, my guy friends liked to go to the stores I liked to – Best Buy, Circuit City, etc. My female friends – not so much. However, my female friends did like to shop and hang out. My guy friends were more of “go in the store, get what you need, and get out” people. My guy friends who are gay are the best of both worlds.

5. A susceptibility to be bullied by other boys, who may tease them unmercifully and call them "queer," "fag" and "gay."

Bullies will call people names, regardless of whether someone is gay or straight. Queer and gay are not "bad words," though they can be used to hurt. Bullies who call people names like queer, fag, and gey may be redirecting their anger and confusion of their own sexuality at others they see as more vulnerable. They might not be able to face the fact that they might be gay, queer, or a fag.

6. A tendency to walk, talk, dress and even "think" effeminately.

I don’t think I’ve ever walked or talked effeminately. I know I have never dressed effeminately. How does one "think" effeminately? Personally, if someone does walk, talk, dress, or "think" effeminately, that is his or her choice. Parents should let their children be who they are. If they don’t they’ll end up with fucked up adults.

7. A repeatedly stated desire to be — or insistence that he is — a girl.

I never wanted to be a girl; I like the equipment I was born with. As far as I know, none of my gay friends ever wanted to be a girl. Now, I know of some people who do want to be a woman, but they fall in a different category – transsexuals. If they can afford the make-up, augmentations, and various other sundry things that go along with that process, more power to them. I like being a guy. It’s easier (IMHO).

Focus on the Family provides more crappy advice:

If your child is experiencing several signs of gender confusion, professional help is available. It’s best to seek that help before your child reaches puberty.

"By the time the adolescent hormones kick in during early adolescence, a full-blown gender identity crisis threatens to overwhelm the teenager," warns psychologist Dr. James Dobson. To compound the problem, many of these teens experience "great waves of guilt accompanied by secret fears of divine retribution."

If your child has already reached puberty, change is difficult, but it’s not too late.

Again, this is total BS. I knew by the time I was four that I was "different." I didn't know what the word for my difference was until I was in my teens. I never had a "gender identity crisis." I knew I was a guy who liked other guys. At first, I wondered why I was not "normal" like other guys. After I read (See, it was the books!) and researched I discovered that I was "normal." I never felt guilt or secret fears of divine retribution.

The "advice" Dr. James Dobson is giving families is bad advice. It is harmful to children and teens. If parents truly cared about their children they would ignore his "advice" and let their children be who they are.

Wanker of the Day: Bob Newman
A Writer Insults Fallen Iraqi War Dead


I just read the most disgusting, racist screed against Cindy Sheehan called, “A Mother Insults Her Son,” by Bob Newman (Bobby). For the record, Bob Newman is a balding, pasty-white man. He calls Iraqis “filthy ragheads and camel jockeys.” Wow! I wonder if he is dusting off his white hood for use.

Apparently, Bobby has never read the Taguba report or the other reports documenting abuse and torture by U.S. military personnel. He obviously ignored the pictures from Abu Ghraib. Bobby writes, “…kick their door in and drag the entire family off to a grisly torture chamber, where the parents will be made to watch their children be repeatedly raped and sodomized…” At first, I had a glimmer of hope that he had read some of Seymour Hersh’s articles, but I was let down.

Bobby says, “Her son adamantly disagreed with her…” How does he know that? Did he talk to Casey Sheehan before or while he was in Iraq? I don’t think so. For all we know, Casey agreed with his mother. However, he was a soldier. His duty was to obey the orders of the Commander in Chief. He did, and went to Iraq where he died. Simply because he knew the risks and accepted them does not mean Casey agreed with President Bush.

Bobby then says, “He died doing his part to prevent the Muslim terrorists from killing more and more innocent civilians around the world, in places like the Philippines, Italy, Thailand, France, India, Russia, Lebanon, Netherlands, England, Israel, Spain and the United States.” Before March 23, 2003, the only Muslim terrorists were in the Northern No-Fly-Zone. Prior to March 23, 2003, Iraq had nothing to do with September 11th. Bobby should know better than that (apparently he does not). The Muslim terrorists were in Afghanistan, not Iraq. We took our eye off the ball, attacked a country that had no WMDs, no ties to al Qaeda, and was contained. The reasons to go into Iraq – WMDs and ties to al Qaeda were proven to be incorrect.

Mrs. Sheehan is asking for another audience with President Bush because he was glib and flippant during their initial meeting. Again, Bobby was not present, yet he feels he can comment about this. One thing that I agree with Bobby on is that all 1833 (as of 8 August 2005) parents (mothers, fathers, stepmothers, stepfathers, guardians, etc.) deserve a one-on-one meeting with President Bush. I think they should get at least one hour of the President’s time. That would be at least 1833 hours. This would take about 229 days (one meeting per fallen soldier’s family - eight hours per day). This is the least he could do.

Bobby should know better. Soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines may agree or disagree with the current Commander in Chief. I am a veteran. I know many, many people who disagreed with President Clinton (as a recent example). Yet, when the orders came down, they followed them. Casey Sheehan did the same. How many funerals has Bobby gone to? How many grieving families has he consoled? Bob Newman is a disingenuous, racist, misogynist bigot.