By Beauty Damned

Sleepy Rambling

I have eaten two meals in two days and I'm starting to feel a little rundown. Don't ask why I'm up at this hour.

I've been driving myself crazy about the party. But I picked up so many fun things today and I'm starting to get really jittery about all the people who are coming. I thought it was going to be a low turnout, but it may end up being a surprise rager. I really don't know what the final count will be, but a lot of people have positively RSVPd. I've lived in NY for four years and I always feel like I still don't have that many friends, but I guess it's because I always compare to the kind of excessively active social life that I had back in Oregon. I forget that I'm 26 years old. Practically ancient, and I don't need that kind of social life anymore, because...um...I have better things to do with my time... like uh... sit on this blog and argue with hopelessly brainwashed republicans.

No really though, I was surprised when I realized how many people were coming, and that, even excluding a lot of the people I invited who couldn't make it, it's still going to be a big party. (I say "big" proportionate to the size of my abode, which is not tiny by my standards, but by Paris Hilton's standards it might seem pretty fuckin humble).

I feel like tomorrow is Christmas and I can't stop thinking about all the preparations left to make. All the errands I still have to run. But really, it shouldn't be so bad. Kathleen, Rob and I carved three beautiful pumpkins last night. Rob's has the goofy/scary face, Kathleen's has the happy face and mine has the Brooklyn wiseguy face. Something about his downturned mouth looks like he's suddenly going to come out and say "Hey you! Yeah you! You talkiname?" All the decorations are ready to be hung. Just have to whip up some eats and get last minute drinks and ice and shit. There is more than enough candy in my house to give an entire elementary school a blastoff.

But there will be no elementary school children here. Just a whole slew of decked out, booze hungry adults looking for a good time. I think it's going to work out. Maybe I'll get some rest now so that I'm not a dragass for the big day. Hopefully, some photographs of this shenanigan will turn up in a few days.

Spookfest

Going over to Kathleen's to carve pumpkins and drink spice lattes! I have been so preoccupied with posting about politics (sorry to my readers who enjoy the tamer side of this blog for the recent boxing matches, but it's all in fun and I'm supercharged for this election!)

Anyway, aside from that, I'm throwing a Halloween party Sat night so I'm going crazy trying to put everything together. I went to the costume store last night and picked out my costume and some decorations and the place was an absolute ZOO. Tonight should be fun with the pumpkin carving. Tomorrow night cleaning the house from top to bottom. Saturday cooking all day and getting all the decorations put up (with the help of some friends hopefully!) Party starts Saturday night at 8 p.m. Then the real fun will begin! Wish me luck, because I'll be lucky if I can pull this thing off without losing a marble or two in the process.

Bane of Bush

Some good articles and editorials relating to Bush's war on facts.

Bush's difficult relationship with reality.

George Bush Won't Be Reading This

George Bush Denies Global Warming Exists, Despite Scientific Evidence

Bush ignores facts with good reason

Pre-War Statements By Cheney Under Scrutiny (Good example of how Bush administration only elicited intelligence and opinions that supported what he wanted to hear about Iraq and how Bush lied in his SOU about Uranium)

Bush Uranium Lie is the Tip of the Iceberg

Fear Mongering Instead of Facts

PIPA Report on how Bush Administration's war on facts has kept supporters misinformed

Bush confesses he's only human, but won't admit errors

President Bush is certain he did the right thing by going to war in Iraq. Bush never second-guesses himself, a trait that permeates his administration and contains the seeds of his undoing.

Bush Denies He Ever Said He Wasn't That Concerned About Bin Laden (nothing like getting caught in an outright lie!)

And last, but far from least, that piece which I'm greatful to Cul for preserving and thereby saving me the $3.00 that the NYT wants to charge for the archived article:

Without A Doubt by Ron Suskind (How Bush's "faith" guides him - consequently, guiding him in the opposite direction from reality)

George Bush tells us himself what he thinks of facts and evidence:

Thanks to Sandy's comment about Foreign Policy Magazine, I have an excellent article to add to this growing list:

Bush’s Willing Enablers ("What needs to go is the tragic alchemy that allows time-tested principles to be too easily discarded in favor of bad, ideologically driven policies.")

A Good Word

Washington Post endorses Kerry, and gently slaps the wrist of the Bush administration (old news for some, but worth reading for those who haven't already, though I disagree with some of their characterizations of Bush in a positive light. I find it difficult to reflect on anything positive about his presidency, as I believe that it has been a disaster from start to finish). Cul posted an article recently that highlighted the fact that at least 24 newspapers nationwide that endorsed Bush in 2000 are now endorsing Kerry. That brought a smile to my face.

Kerry for President

Sunday, October 24, 2004

EXPERTS TELL US that most voters have had no difficulty making up their minds in this year's presidential election. Half the nation is passionately for George W. Bush, the pollsters say, and half passionately for John F. Kerry -- or, at least, passionately against Mr. Bush. We have not been able to share in this passion, nor in the certainty. As readers of this page know, we find much to criticize in Mr. Bush's term but also more than a few things to admire. We find much to admire in Mr. Kerry's life of service, knowledge of the world and positions on a range of issues -- but also some things that give us pause. On balance, though, we believe Mr. Kerry, with his promise of resoluteness tempered by wisdom and open-mindedness, has staked a stronger claim on the nation's trust to lead for the next four years.

The balancing process begins, as reelection campaigns must, with the incumbent. His record, particularly in foreign affairs, can't be judged with a simple aye or nay. President Bush rallied the nation after Sept. 11, 2001, and reshaped his own world view. His commitment to a long-term struggle to promote freedom in the Arab world reflects an understanding of the deep threat posed by radical Islamic fundamentalism. His actions have not always matched his stirring rhetoric on the subject, and setbacks to democracy in other parts of the world (notably Russia) appear not to have troubled him much.

But Mr. Bush has accomplished more than his critics acknowledge, both in the practical business of forming alliances to track terrorists and in beginning to reshape a Middle East policy too long centered on accommodating friendly dictators. He has promised the large increases in foreign aid, to help poor nations cope with AIDS and for other purposes, that we believe are essential.

The campaign that Mr. Bush led to oust the Taliban from Afghanistan seems easy and obvious in retrospect, but at the time many people warned of imminent quagmire. Mr. Bush wasted valuable time with his initial determination to avoid nation-building after Kabul fell and his drawdown of U.S. forces. But even so, Afghanistan today is far from the failure that Mr. Kerry portrays. Afghans and U.S. security alike are better off thanks to the intervention.

In Iraq, we do not fault Mr. Bush for believing, as President Clinton before him believed, that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. We supported the war and believed that the Iraqi dictator posed a challenge that had to be faced; we continue to believe that the U.S. mission to promote a representative government in Iraq has a chance to leave the United States safer and the Iraqis far better off than they were under their murderous dictator.

We do, however, fault Mr. Bush for exaggerating to the public the intelligence given him privately and for alienating allies unnecessarily. Above all, we fault him for ignoring advice to better prepare for postwar reconstruction. The damage caused by that willful indifference is incalculable. There is no guarantee that Iraq would be more peaceful today if U.S. forces had prevented postwar looting, secured arms depots, welcomed international involvement and transferred authority to Iraqis more quickly. But the chances of success would have been higher. Yet the administration repeatedly rebuffed advice to commit sufficient troops. Its disregard for the Geneva Conventions led to a prison-torture scandal in both Iraq and Afghanistan that has diminished for years, if not decades, the United States' image and influence abroad. In much of the world, in fact, U.S. prestige is at a historic low, partly because of the president's high-handed approach to allies on issues ranging far beyond Iraq.

These failings have a common source in Mr. Bush's cocksureness, his failure to seek advice from anyone outside a narrow circle and his unwillingness to expect the unexpected or adapt to new facts. These are dangerous traits in any president but especially in a wartime leader. They are matched by his failure to admit his errors or to hold senior officials accountable for theirs.

ON THE DOMESTIC side, Mr. Bush and his Republican allies in the House have governed as heavy-handed partisans. We applaud Mr. Bush's campaign to promote accountability in elementary and secondary schools, and some of his other ideas may sound attractive as well: a degree of privatization to give people more control over their retirement funds, individual health accounts that might better match the mobile 21st-century world of work, market incentives to reduce pollution. But he has failed to do the hard work to turn such ideas from slogans into fair and balanced programs, and he has never said how he would pay for them, as in the case of Social Security private accounts.

Which brings us to his reckless fiscal policy. Mr. Bush inherited a budget in surplus but facing strains in the long run as retiring baby boomers intensify their claims on the nation's resources for pensions and health care. A recession that was gathering as he took office, and the economic blow delivered by the Sept. 11 attacks, would have turned surplus into deficit under the best of circumstances.

But Mr. Bush aggravated those circum- stances and drove the deficit to record levels with tax cuts that were inefficient in providing economic stimulus and that were tilted toward the wealthy. Despite the drains on the Treasury from the war in Iraq, he insisted that all the cuts be made permanent; no one, no matter how rich, was asked to sacrifice. Mr. Bush's rationales have shifted, but his prescription -- tax cuts -- has remained constant, no matter what the cost to future generations. The resulting fiscal deficit has dragged down the national savings rate, leaving the country dependent upon foreigners for capital in an unsustainable way. Mr. Bush says the answer lies in spending discipline, but he has shown none himself; see, for example, the disgusting farm subsidies he signed into law.

In 2000, Mr. Bush justifiably criticized his predecessor for failing to deal with the looming problems of Social Security and Medicare. In office, though, he has been equally delinquent, even as the day of reckoning drew closer. He championed a huge new entitlement for Medicare without insisting on the cost-cutting reforms that everyone knows are needed.

SO MR. BUSH HAS not earned a second term. But there is a second question: Has the challenger made his case? Here's why we say yes.

Mr. Kerry, like Mr. Bush, offers no plan to cope with retirement and health costs, but he promises more fiscal realism. He sensibly proposes to reverse Mr. Bush's tax cuts on the wealthiest and pledges to scale back his own spending proposals if funds don't suffice. He would seek to restore budget discipline rules that helped get deficits under control in the 1990s.

On many other issues, Mr. Kerry has the better approach. He has a workable plan to provide health insurance to more Americans; the 45 million uninsured represent a shameful abdication that appears not to have concerned Mr. Bush one whit. Where Mr. Bush ignored the dangers of climate change and favored industry at the expense of clean air and water, Mr. Kerry is a longtime and thoughtful champion of environmental protection. Mr. Bush played politics with the Constitution, as Mr. Kerry would not, by endorsing an amendment to ban gay marriage. Mr. Kerry has pledged to follow the Geneva Conventions abroad and respect civil liberties at home. A Kerry judiciary -- and the next president is likely to make a significant mark on the Supreme Court -- would be more hospitable to civil rights, abortion rights and the right to privacy.

None of these issues would bring us to vote for Mr. Kerry if he were less likely than Mr. Bush to keep the nation safe. But we believe the challenger is well equipped to guide the country in a time of danger. Mr. Kerry brings a résumé that unarguably has prepared him for high office. He understood early on the dangers of non-state actors such as al Qaeda. To pave the way for restored relations with Vietnam in the 1990s, he took on the thankless and politically risky task of convincing relatives that no American prisoners remained in Southeast Asia. While he wrongly opposed the first Persian Gulf War, he supported the use of American force in Bosnia and Kosovo.

As with Mr. Bush, some of Mr. Kerry's strengths strike us as potential weaknesses. The senator is far more likely than Mr. Bush to seek a range of opinions before making a decision -- but is he decisive enough? He understands the importance of allies and of burnishing America's image -- but would he be too reluctant to give offense? His Senate record suggests an understanding of the importance of open markets, but during the campaign he has retreated to protectionist rhetoric that is troubling in its own right and as a possible indicator of inconstancy.

We have been dismayed most of all by Mr. Kerry's zigzags on Iraq, such as his swervings on whether Saddam Hussein presented a threat. As Mr. Bush charges, Mr. Kerry's description of the war as a "diversion" does not inspire confidence in his determination to see it through. But Mr. Kerry has repeatedly pledged not to cut and run from Iraq, and we believe a Kerry administration would be better able to tackle the formidable nation-building tasks that remain there. Mr. Kerry echoes the Bush goals of an elected Iraqi government and a well-trained Iraqi force to defend it but argues that he could implement the strategy more effectively.

Mr. Kerry understands that the biggest threat to U.S. security comes from terrorists wielding nuclear or biological weapons. He pledges to add two divisions to the U.S. Army; try harder to secure nuclear weapons and materials around the world, and improve U.S. preparations for a bioterrorism attack. There is no way to know whether he would be more successful than Mr. Bush in slowing North Korea's and Iran's march toward becoming nuclear-armed states, but he attaches the right priority to both problems. He is correct that those challenges, like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, call for the kind of sustained diplomacy that has been missing for four years. We hope he would be firmer than Mr. Bush in standing up to the genocide unfolding in Sudan.

We do not view a vote for Mr. Kerry as a vote without risks. But the risks on the other side are well known, and the strengths Mr. Kerry brings are considerable. He pledges both to fight in Iraq and to reach out to allies; to hunt down terrorists, and to engage without arrogance the Islamic world. These are the right goals, and we think Mr. Kerry is the better bet to achieve them.

© 2004 The Washington Post Company

Not So Surprising

Here's something for ya'll to ponder:

Blue States Smart - Red States Dumb

By: Todd Smyth
Independent Media TV

OK, call me an elitist but this is disturbing: Bush's Chief Advisor, Karl Rove has already said it: "As people do better, they start voting like Republicans...unless they have too much education and vote Democratic, which proves there can be too much of a good thing." Here's a chart that clearly indicates how stupid Republicans are compared to Democrats. The chart is based on the U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 American Community Survey and the current electoral vote count, based on recent polls.

Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives. - John Stuart Mill, 1865

Sources:
Electoral Vote Predictor 2004
U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 American Community Survey

Further proof of this disturbing realization can be found in this PIPA report, thanks to Superchuy:

Even after the final report of Charles Duelfer to Congress saying that Iraq did not have a significant WMD program, 72% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq had actual WMD (47%) or a major program for developing them (25%). Fifty-six percent assume that most experts believe Iraq had actual WMD and 57% also assume, incorrectly, that Duelfer concluded Iraq had at least a major WMD program. Kerry supporters hold opposite beliefs on all these points.

Sorry guys, looks like the jury is in on that one.

A Worthy Perspective

I've been meaning to post this article for awhile, and am finally getting around to it. It really hits the nail on the head. The writer is Doug Bandow, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. He served as a special assistant to President Reagan and was a visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation.

Reaganite: Why Conservatives Must Not Vote for Bush

By: Doug Bandow

Conservative pundit Andrew Sullivan worries that Bush "is fusing Big Government liberalism with religious right moralism. It's the nanny state with more cash."

Sept. 10, 2004 | George W. Bush presents conservatives with a fundamental challenge: Do they believe in anything other than power? Are they serious about their rhetoric on limited, constitutionally restrained government?
Bush appears to have remained strong in the presidential race by rallying conservatives behind him. In his convention acceptance speech he derided Sen. John Kerry's claim to represent "conservative values" and seized the mantle of promoting liberty at home and abroad.

Indeed, many conservatives react like the proverbial vampire at the sight of a cross when they consider casting a ballot for Kerry. Tom Nugent, a National Review Online contributing editor, wrote: "The last thing the Republican party needs is the reckless suggestion that conservatives vote Democratic." That is mild, however, compared with the American Conservative Union's mass e-mail solicitation headlined "Why Do Terrorists Want Kerry to Win?"

Republican partisans have little choice but to focus on Kerry's perceived vulnerabilities. A few high-octane speeches cannot disguise the catastrophic failure of the Bush administration in both its domestic and its foreign policies. Mounting deficits are likely to force eventual tax increases, reversing perhaps President Bush's most important economic legacy. The administration's foreign policy is an even greater shambles, with Iraq aflame and America increasingly reviled by friend and foe alike.

Quite simply, the president, despite his well-choreographed posturing, does not represent traditional conservatism -- a commitment to individual liberty, limited government, constitutional restraint and fiscal responsibility. Rather, Bush routinely puts power before principle. As Chris Vance, chairman of Washington state's Republican Party, told the Economist: "George Bush's record is not that conservative ... There's something there for everyone."

Even Bush's conservative sycophants have trouble finding policies to praise. Certainly it cannot be federal spending. In 2000 candidate Bush complained that Al Gore would "throw the budget out of balance." But the big-spending Bush administration and GOP Congress have turned a 10-year budget surplus once estimated at $5.6 trillion into an estimated $5 trillion flood of red ink. This year's deficit will run about $445 billion, according to the Office of Management and Budget.

Brian Riedl of the Heritage Foundation reports that in 2003 "government spending exceeded $20,000 per household for the first time since World War II." There are few programs at which the president has not thrown money; he has supported massive farm subsidies, an expensive new Medicare drug benefit, thousands of pork barrel projects, dubious homeland security grants, an expansion of Bill Clinton's AmeriCorps, and new foreign aid programs. What's more, says former conservative Republican Rep. Bob Barr, "in the midst of the war on terror and $500 billion deficits, [Bush] proposes sending spaceships to Mars."

Unfortunately, even the official spending numbers understate the problem. The Bush administration is pushing military proposals that may understate defense costs by $500 billion over the coming decade. The administration lied about the likely cost of the Medicare drug benefit, which added $8 trillion in unfunded liabilities. Moreover, it declined to include in budget proposals any numbers for maintaining the occupation of Iraq or underwriting the war on terrorism. Those funds will come through supplemental appropriation bills. Never mind that Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz had promised that reconstruction of Iraq could be paid for with Iraqi resources. (Yet, despite the Bush administration's generosity, it could not find the money to expeditiously equip U.S. soldiers in Iraq with body armor.)

Nor would a second Bush term likely be different. Nothing in his convention speech suggested a new willingness by Bush to make tough choices. Indeed, when discussing their domestic agenda, administration officials complained that the media had ignored their proposals, such as $250 million in aid to community colleges for job training. Not mentioned was that Washington runs a plethora of job training programs, few of which have demonstrated lasting benefits. This is the hallmark of a limited-government conservative?

Jonah Goldberg, a regular contributor to NRO, one of Bush's strongest bastions, complains that the president has "asked for a major new commitment by the federal government to insert itself into everything from religious charities to marriage counseling." Indeed, Bush seems to aspire to be America's moralizer in chief. He would use the federal government to micromanage education, combat the scourge of steroid use, push drug testing of high school kids, encourage character education, promote marriage, hire mentors for children of prisoners and provide coaches for ex-cons.

Conservative pundit Andrew Sullivan worries that Bush "is fusing Big Government liberalism with religious right moralism. It's the nanny state with more cash."

Yet some conservatives celebrate this approach. Kevin Fobbs and Lisa Sarrach of the National Urban Policy Action Council opine that Bush is "a strong leader, a comforter in chief." A comforter in chief?

Why, then, would any conservative believer in limited, constitutional government vote for Bush? It is fear of the thought of a President John Kerry.

Bobby Eberle of the conservative Web site GOPUSA warns, "One can only imagine the budgets that would be submitted by Kerry." President Bush has made the same point, repeatedly charging that Kerry "has promised about $2 trillion of new spending thus far." Maybe that is true, though the cost of Bush's actual performance would be hard to beat. After all, the president initiated a huge increase in the welfare state with his Medicare drug benefit bill. Veronique de Rugy of the American Enterprise Institute points out that, in sharp contrast to Presidents Reagan and Clinton, "Bush has cut none of the [federal] agencies' budgets during his first term."

Moreover, whatever the personal preferences of a President Kerry, he could spend only whatever legislators allowed, so assuming that the GOP maintains its control over Congress, outlays almost certainly would rise less than if Bush won reelection. History convincingly demonstrates that divided government delivers less spending than unitary control. Give either party complete control of government and the treasury vaults quickly empty. Share power between the parties and, out of principle or malice, they check each other. The American Conservative Union's Don Devine says bluntly: "A rational conservative would calculate a vote for Kerry as likely to do less damage" fiscally.

Maybe so, respond some conservatives, but how about the Bush tax cuts? The president tells campaign audiences: "They're going to raise your taxes; we're not." But even here the Bush record is not secure. Bruce Bartlett of the National Center for Policy Analysis points to the flood of red ink unleashed by the administration and predicts that tax hikes are inevitable irrespective of who is elected in November. That is, Bush's fiscal irresponsibility could cancel out his most important economic success for the GOP.

For some conservatives, the clincher in favor of Bush is the war on terrorism. Kerry, with more war experience than the current president and vice president combined, "resembles Neville Chamberlain," says Nugent. Answering his own hysterical question, "Why do terrorists want Kerry to win?" David Keene of the American Conservative Union says Kerry would submit to terrorists and "lead the free world to a second Munich," only this time with al-Qaida instead of Adolph Hitler.

Yet Bush's foreign policy record is as bad as his domestic scorecard. The administration correctly targeted the Taliban in Afghanistan, but quickly neglected that nation, which is in danger of falling into chaos. The Taliban is resurgent, violence has flared, drug production has burgeoned and elections have been postponed.

Iraq, already in chaos, is no conservative triumph. The endeavor is social engineering on a grand scale, a war of choice launched on erroneous grounds that has turned into a disastrously expensive neocolonial burden.

Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, contrary to administration claims, and no operational relationship with al- Qaida, contrary to administration insinuations. U.S. officials bungled the occupation, misjudging everything from the financial cost to the troop requirements.

Particularly shocking is the administration's ineptitude with regard to Iraq. Fareed Zakaria writes in Newsweek, "On almost every issue involving postwar Iraq -- troop strength, international support, the credibility of exiles, de-Baathification, handling Ayatollah Ali Sistani -- Washington's assumptions and policies have been wrong. By now most have been reversed, often too late to have much effect. This strange combination of arrogance and incompetence has not only destroyed the hopes for a new Iraq. It has had the much broader effect of turning the United States into an international outlaw in the eyes of much of the world."

Sadly, the Iraq debacle has undercut the fight against terrorism. The International Institute for Strategic Studies in its most recent study warns that the Iraq occupation has spurred recruiting by smaller terrorist groups around the world. And acting CIA Director John McLaughlin worries that terrorists are plotting "something big" against the United States. For a time the Pentagon considered closing its child care center, lest it become the target of an attack. NRO columnist Goldberg observes that the president's contention that the war in Iraq has made America safer "is absurd." Goldberg backs the war for other reasons, but says it was probably "the risky thing in the short run."

Bush -- not even sure himself whether the war on terrorism is winnable -- has been unable to demonstrate how Iraq has reduced the threat of terrorism against America. Instead, he says: "I need four more years to complete the work. There's more work to do to make America a safer place. There's more work to do to make the world a more peaceful place." Alas, there's more work, far more work, to do because of Bush's misguided policies.

A few conservatives are distressed at what Bush has wrought in Iraq. "Crossfire" host Tucker Carlson said recently: "I think it's a total nightmare and disaster, and I'm ashamed that I went against my own instincts in supporting it." William F. Buckley Jr., longtime National Review editor and columnist, wrote: "With the benefit of minute hindsight, Saddam Hussein wasn't the kind of extra-territorial menace that was assumed by the administration one year ago. If I knew then what I know now about what kind of situation we would be in, I would have opposed the war."

And opposed it he should have. The conflict is undermining America's values. As social critic Randolph Bourne long ago observed, "War is the health of the state." Although the Constitution is not a suicide pact, the so-called PATRIOT Act threatens some of the basic civil liberties that make America worth defending. Abu Ghraib has sullied America's image among both friends and enemies.

Still, there obviously are issues important to conservatives on which the candidates differ. On abortion and judicial appointments, for instance, Bush is clearly superior for conservatives. On business regulation Bush is probably better. For this reason Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Foundation worries that "in punishing Bush, they [conservatives opposing him] may end up punishing the country." The administration has also sacrificed economic liberty on issues such as antitrust, telecommunications and trade.

But these differences in practice may matter little. Not much can be done on abortion given current court rulings and the fact that Bush has won approval of few of his most conservative nominees. Republican senators could limit Kerry's choices just as Democratic senators have limited Bush's choices.

Bush's record has been so bad that some of his supporters simply ask, So what? Bush is "a big government conservative," explains commentator Fred Barnes. That means using "what would normally be seen as liberal means -- activist government -- for conservative ends. And they're willing to spend more and increase the size of government in the process."

But this political prostitution is unworthy of venerable conservative principles. Undoubtedly, reducing the reach of government is not easy, and there is no shame in adjusting tactics and even goals to reflect political reality. But to surrender one's principles, to refuse to fight for them, is to put personal ambition before all else.

The final conservative redoubt is Bush's admirable personal life. Alas, other characteristics of his seem less well suited to the presidency. By his own admission he doesn't do nuance and doesn't read. He doesn't appear to reflect on his actions and seems unable to concede even the slightest mistake. Nor is he willing to hold anyone else responsible for anything. It is a damning combination. John Kerry may flip-flop, but at least he realizes that circumstances change and sometimes require changed policies. He doesn't cowardly flee at the first mention of accountability.

Some onetime administration supporters have grown disillusioned. Sullivan observes: "To have humiliated the United States by presenting false and misleading intelligence and then to have allowed something like Abu Ghraib to happen ... is unforgivable. By refusing to hold anyone accountable, the president has also shown he is not really in control. We are at war; and our war leaders have given the enemy their biggest propaganda coup imaginable, while refusing to acknowledge their own palpable errors and misjudgments."

Those who still believe in Bush have tried to play up comparisons with Ronald Reagan, but I knew Reagan and he was no George W. Bush. It's not just that Reagan read widely, thought deeply about issues and wrote prolifically. He really believed in the primacy of individual liberty and of limited, constitutional government.

In his farewell address to the nation on Jan. 11, 1989, Reagan observed: "I wasn't a great communicator, but I communicated great things." Even when politics forced him to give way, everyone knew what he stood for. Bush's biggest problem, in contrast, is not that he is a poor communicator. It is that he has nothing to communicate. Victory over terrorists, yes -- but then what American really disagrees with that goal? Beyond that there is nothing.

"Government should never try to control or dominate the lives of our citizens," Bush says. But you wouldn't know that from his policies. He has expanded government power, increased federal spending, initiated an unnecessary war, engaged in global social engineering and undercut executive accountability. This is a bill of particulars that could be laid on Lyndon Johnson's grave. No wonder "Republicans aren't very enthusiastic about" Bush, says right-wing syndicated columnist Robert Novak.

Although anecdotal evidence of conservative disaffection with Bush is common -- for instance, my Pentagon employee neighbor, a business lobbyist friend, even my retired career Air Force father -- for many the thought of voting for John Kerry remains simply too horrific to contemplate. And this dissatisfaction has yet to show up in polls. Fear of Kerry, more than love of Bush, holds many conservatives behind the GOP.

Yet serious conservatives must fear for the country if Bush is reelected. Is Kerry really likely to initiate more unnecessary wars, threaten more civil liberties and waste more tax dollars? In any case, there are other choices (e.g., the Libertarian Party's Michael Badnarik, the Constitution Party's Michael Peroutka and even Independent Ralph Nader).

Serious conservatives should deny their votes to Bush. "When it comes to choosing a president, results matter," the president says. So true. A Kerry victory would likely be bad for the cause of individual liberty and limited government. But based on the results of his presidency, a Bush victory would be catastrophic. Conservatives should choose principle over power.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

© Copyright 2004 Salon

Bush IS a Joke

I've heard this one before, but it made me laugh again, so I had to share:

George Bush visits a primary school and sits in on one of the classes, which is in the middle of a discussion on words and their meanings.

"Well," says the boy, "because it sure as hell wouldn't be a great loss, and it probably wouldn't be an accident!"

Latest on Hallifraud

Our tax dollars at work:

Halliburton to keep disputed money

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The Army is laying the groundwork to let Halliburton Co. keep several billion dollars paid for work in Iraq that Pentagon auditors say is questionable or unsupported by proper documentation, according to a report published Friday.

According to Pentagon documents reviewed by the Wall Street Journal, the Army has acknowledged that the Houston-based company might never be able to account properly for some of its work, which has been probed amid accusations that Halliburton's Kellogg Brown & Root unit overbilled the government for some operations in Iraq.

The company has hired a consulting firm to estimate what Halliburton's services should cost, the report said. The newspaper, citing the documents and internal memorandums, said that officials are considering using the estimate to serve as the basis for "an equitable settlement,'' under which the Pentagon could drop many of the claims its auditors have made against the company.

But the Journal added that some disgruntled Pentagon officials see the effort to broker an outside settlement with the company as unusual because the contract is so large. According to the report, Kellogg Brown & Root has so far billed about $12 billion in Iraq, and about $3 billion of that remains disputed by government officials.

The Journal also cited Pentagon records showing that $650 million in Halliburton billings are deemed questionable. An additional $2 billion is considered to have insufficient paperwork to justify the billing, the report said.

A representative for Halliburton did not immediately return a call seeking comment early Friday.

Wonder where all the money went? Check out what Halliburton whistleblowers have to say about it. Oh wasn't that schmuck on the radio railing on about the Oil for Food program? Interesting, that. An excerpt (and further evidence of Cheney's pathological lies):

"the one company that helped Saddam exploit the oil-for-food program in the mid-1990s that wasn't identified in Duelfer's report was Halliburton, and the person at the helm of Halliburton at the time of the scheme was Vice President Dick Cheney. Halliburton and its subsidiaries were one of several American and foreign oil supply companies that helped Iraq increase its crude exports from $4 billion in 1997 to nearly $18 billion in 2000 by skirting U.S. laws and selling Iraq spare parts so it could repair its oil fields and pump more oil."

Another interesting tidbit on Cheney/Halliburton: Cheney Lobbied Congress To Ease Sanctions Against Terrorist Countries while he was heading Halliburton. Proof positive that Cheney puts oil and greed before U.S. national security and the financial well being of American taxpayers.

In fact, an endless supply of gut churning news about Halliburton (and so many other things that it's just overwhelming) can be found here. My favorite archive for under reported news. Just about everything you ever needed to know (or wished you didn't!) about politics and the Bush administration in particular, is all there, well compiled and easily accessible. Now get smart dammit.

As the Day of Judgment Draws Near

On another note, I was listening to Howard Stern this morning and he had Al Franken on. Al Franken was "debating" with one of the show's directors or producers or something who is a Bush supporter. And I can't tell you how embarassed I was for the Bush supporter. Not only could he not articulate a single fact based reason for his continuing support for Bush, he could barely form an intelligable argument and referred to the "Oil for Food" program as the "blood for oil, I mean, er, you know the oil program that the French were involved in where Saddam was paying them off..." Al Franken said "paying who off?" And the guy said "I don't know! Some French dudes!" On all other issues, he was comparably idiotic and angry and frustrated by his own inability to form a solid defense for his belief that Bush is doing a good job. At the same time that I was laughing, I felt really sad that he is just one of millions of such uninformed individuals out there who will be filing into the polls on Nov. 2. The craziest part is that I don't think a person has to be all that informed to see the obvious fact that Bush has done a terrible job as president, has not lived up to a single 2000 election campaign promise, and has refused to exhibit any accountability for problems that have been caused directly by his administration. I don't know if anyone else has noticed, but we have a real epidemic of severe idiocy in this country. Even after a couple of years on this box, debating and exchanging heated arguments with conservatives, I still cannot fathom how any clear thinking individual could choose to vote for Bush after all that we've seen and the chaos that he's raised. I guess the question is: how many clear thinking individuals are there in this country? Probably less than twenty five percent, with the other seventy five percent being hopeless sheep.

I saw one of those Baldwin brothers being interviewed the other night. He's a big Bush supporter (I think it was Stephen, but they all look the same to me). When asked why he was voting for Bush he said something like "I'm a born again Christian and I'm voting for the man with the most faith. I think that [Christian] faith should play a much larger role in our political process and the decisions that are made by our leaders." You know I was pounding on the coffee table shouting "ever heard of a little thing called separation of church and state you big fuckin palooka???"

But see, this is a big part of the problem. There are many people in this country who do not believe that the separation of church and state is necessary or even a particularly good thing. They tolerate it because they are the minority, but the religious right has just been waiting in the wings for that door to open into which they can stick their big socially and politically invasive foot. They believe that if everyone would just convert to Christianity like they're supposed to, then we wouldn't have to worry about silly things like separating church and state because we could just seamlessly merge the two and all of our laws would be dictated by the interpretation of one religious ideology. (Then comes the problem of who gets to interpret it...the president? the people? The church?) These people do not believe in democracy. I find it so ironic that the same people who support Bush and claim to want democracy in Iraq, don't favor democracy in this country. That's how I know the whole thing is such a sham. Because the beliefs, talking points and ideologies that these people spout regularly, often directly contradict eachother and end up in one big cesspool of putrid hypocricy.

I Wonder Where They Went

U.N.: Explosives Missing from Former Iraq Atomic Site

Mon Oct 25, 2004

By Louis Charbonneau

VIENNA (Reuters) - Nearly 380 tons of explosives are missing from a site near Baghdad that was part of Saddam Hussein's dismantled atom bomb program but was never secured by the U.S. military, the United Nations said Monday.

The head of the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog, Mohamed ElBaradei, will immediately report the matter to the U.N. Security Council, a spokeswoman for the agency said.

The missing explosives could potentially be used to detonate a nuclear weapon or in conventional weapons, the agency said.

…

U.S. FAILED TO SECURE KNOWN NUCLEAR SITE

The New York Times report cited White House and Pentagon officials -- as well as at least one Iraqi minister -- as acknowledging that the explosives vanished from the site shortly after the U.S.-led invasion amid widespread looting.

The minister of science and technology, Rashad M. Omar, confirmed the explosives were missing in an interview with The Times and CBS Television in Baghdad.

A Western diplomat close to the IAEA, who declined to be named, said it was difficult to understand why the U.S. military had failed to secure the facility despite knowing how sensitive the site was.

"This was a very well known site. If you could have picked a few sites that you would have to secure then ... Al Qaqaa would certainly be one of the main ones," the diplomat said.

U.S. national security adviser Condoleezza Rice was informed about the missing explosives only within the last month, the Times said, adding that it was unclear whether President Bush was aware.

U.S. administration officials said Sunday the Iraq Survey Group, the Central Intelligence Agency task force that searched for unconventional weapons, had been ordered to investigate the disappearance, the newspaper said.

Vienna diplomats said the IAEA had cautioned the United States about the danger of the explosives before the war, and after the invasion it specifically told U.S. officials about the need to keep the them secured.

If you weren't already familiar with the machinations of this administration, you might innocently inquire "why did we secure the oil ministry, but not secure known weapons facilities, when our primary reason for going to war was the fear that weapons [of mass destruction] would fall into the hands of terrorists?" Were we more concerned that the terrorists might get their hands on our precious crack oil? But I'm not going to ask that question here, because, in the great words of Perry Farrell: "Nothing's shocking." I love how it says "it was unclear whether President Bush was aware..." I don't know what's worse: President Bush being aware of these explosives and not doing anything to make sure they were secured, or not knowing that they were there at all and unsecured. Regardless, it is just one more glaring indication that the Bush administration has bumbled through this war in a manner that has put the entire world at greater risk of violence and terrorism.

Whiney Motherfucker

Sure wish I could write a real entry or peruse the blogsphere to pass a listless Saturday. But I can't! I sit here for 10 minutes and have to go back and lay down! My spine is a piece of shit! Aaaarrggghhh. Brokeback Blogger. That's my new nickname. I can't do anything except occasionally shuffle around my house like an old lady and spend most of the rest of my time laying down on an ice pack. Waaaaaah. It could be worse right? Yes, it could definitely be worse. It's just backpain...it could be way worse.

Stand Back to Avoid Unchained Wrath

Back is out AGAIN. Can't sit for long enough to write a real entry even though I'm fuming about Bush's corporate tax cuts and I have a hair up my ass today about prescription drugs. I got my anti-inflammatory prescription filled and noticed on the bottle it said "manufactured in Mexico City, Mexico." I thought "oh, it's okay for our drugs to be manufactured in Mexico City, but not in Canada. What the fuck ever." Not to mention, OH! That's where the drug companies are sending their manufacturing jobs! Because they get an incentive from Bush's tax cuts to outsource. And people aren't allowed to get their drugs from Canada. So those fucking drug companies are having their cake and eating it too! See how that all ties together? Can you tell I'm cranky? Shiiiit.

Bush Fan

A joke sent by a good friend:

There's a teacher in a small Texas town.
She asks her class how many of them are Bush fans. Not really knowing what a Bush fan is, but wanting to be liked by the teacher, all the kids raise their hands except one boy--Johnny.

Johnny says, "That would make me a Bush fan."

Casualty Vampires

An excerpt from a great post over at Cul's:

Greenfield disagrees. "McCarthy won for about two years, and then the tide turned," he says. Nowadays, it would happen even faster, what with blogs and all. "When somebody starts really playing with the facts, there are so many people on every side of the issue ready to jump on you," he says. "Call me an optimist."

I call him an idiot. This is a country where 42 percent of Americans believe Saddam Hussein was behind the 9-11 attacks, where telling lies before the truth has time to put on its shoes—lies that won't have time to get exposed before the votes, whether the electorate's or the Supreme Court's, get counted—has been Karl Rove's modus operandi since he stole the election for chairman of the College Republicans National Federation in 1973. Punks like Greenfield are Rove's best friend: He's already decided in advance that both sides are equally bad.

Both sides are not equally bad, and any reporters who don't recognize that conservatism's very core has become shot through with a culture of mendacity should turn in their press badge. For example: The former head of the Arizona Republican Party and Christian Coalition, Nathan Sproul, in an operation paid for by the Republican National Committee, has set up "voter outreach" efforts that register Democrats, then allegedly shred their registration forms.

It used to be that we could count on the conscience of conservatives to protect our democratic institutions. The modern conservative movement was founded by idealists, who defined themselves in opposition to the one man most indelibly associated with the anything-to-win, image-is-everything excesses of the Republican Party's moderate wing, Richard Nixon.

I think it's amazing that I've heard even democrats speak almost wistfully of republican president Reagan and even George H.W. Bush! I really think that says something about how scary the Bush administration is. About how badly these people are sabotaging the founding principles of this country and all that is sacred in democracy. And they do it for the love of greed and power. Is it a conspiracy theory? No. It's not. It's a real problem. One that is as crucial that we recognize and deal with as everything from terrorism to health care. Maybe it's a little too abstract for some, or too scary; the idea that our government, and primarily, our highest leaders could be as nefarious and deceitful and self serving as I and so many others say they are.

But this guy says it best.

Not to Fight, But Just to Exist

If you've never listened to Operation Ivy, they're worth a listen. Old-school punk, some may remember them as "Rancid" at one point. When I really need to get energized, I listen to their album (Operation Ivy only made one). It is best when turned up very, very loud.

Take Warning
By Operation Ivy

Stand by your friends, wrong or right
can't call that justice
when its just a stupid excuse to fight
single out and attack
the ones who got no defense
you call that a new way of thinking
I call it regression to ignorance

Take warning, take warning

There's a new generation coming
and we really gotta stand up to them

Nobody's got a thing against you
unless you've got something to prove
we don't need no set of standards
we don't need a new set of rules
heard all that shit before
about stomping out any difference
we say stand together
not to fight, but just to exist

Intimidation coming at us
and we gotta say no to them
Take warning, take warning

Enough is enough is enough
why don't you just ease up?
I saw another beatdown last night, take warning
who's the next to hit the ground tonight, take warning, take warning.

Soaring

These lyrics and this song always take me back to an incredibly nostalgic place in my memory that I especially associate with grey, rainy days like today.

"The Thin Ice"
By Pink Floyd

Momma loves her baby
And Daddy loves you too
And the sea may look warm to you Babe
And the sky may look blue
Ooooh Babe
Ooooh Baby Blue
Ooooh Babe
If you should go skating
On the thin ice of modern life
Dragging behind you the silent reproach
Of a million tear stained eyes
Don't be surprised, when a crack in the ice
Appears under your feet
You slip out of your depth and out of your mind
With your fear flowing out behind you
As you claw the thin ice.

Despots

This shit is out of hand:

Sinclair Fires Critic of Plan to Broadcast Anti-Kerry Film

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 19, 2004

The Washington bureau chief of Sinclair Broadcast Group was fired yesterday after accusing the media company of "indefensible" conduct for planning to air a movie attacking Sen. John Kerry's Vietnam record in the coming days.

Jon Leiberman, who also was the lead political reporter for the 62-station television chain, told CNN last night that he was terminated for his criticism, which was quoted in yesterday's Baltimore Sun. He spoke out, he said, because "I feel so strongly that our credibility is at issue here. . . . I feel our company is trying to sway this election."

The Baltimore-based firm, which has drawn harsh criticism from Kerry and the Democrats, found itself explaining why it dismissed a top journalist for speaking to the media.

Sinclair Vice President Mark Hyman said in a statement: "Everyone is entitled to their personal opinion, including Jon Leiberman. We are disappointed that Jon's political views caused him to speak to the press about company business." The statement called him a "disgruntled employee."

Leiberman, 29, called that characterization "completely unfair," telling CNN's Paula Zahn that Sinclair had promoted him twice and treated him well until he criticized plans to have the news division handle the upcoming hour-long special at a meeting Sunday.

He told the Sun's David Folkenflik that the program -- which is to include the anti-Kerry film "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal" -- is "biased political propaganda, with clear intentions to sway this election. For me, it's not about right or left -- it's about what's right or wrong in news coverage this close to an election."

The movie, which a Kerry spokesman has called "a 42-minute attack ad" in demanding equal time for the Democratic campaign, features 17 former prisoners of war accusing Kerry of betraying his country -- and in some cases extending their captivity -- by testifying in 1971 about U.S. atrocities in Vietnam. "Those were point-blank lies," one ex-POW, Tom McNish, says in the film.

Leiberman called it a "slanted documentary" and said there was no way for Sinclair, which owns the nation's largest collection of network affiliates, to verify the allegations. "Call it commentary, call it an editorial . . . but don't call it news," Leiberman said. He added: "Viewers aren't going to trust us if we call it news. . . . I couldn't be part of this special and call it news when what it is is political propaganda."

Leiberman acknowledged that he was violating Sinclair policy by giving an unauthorized interview and revealing part of what happened at a company meeting, but said he felt he had no choice but to speak out. "I knew I had nothing to gain by doing it and everything to lose," he said. "I need to be able to sleep at night."

"America's at its best when people stand up to powerful interests and tell them the truth," said Kerry campaign spokesman Chad Clanton. "That's what happened here."

Sinclair chief executive David Smith and his three brothers, who are company directors, have given $121,000 to President Bush and the Republicans since 1999. Some liberal groups are organizing a boycott of Sinclair's advertisers, which include prominent national chains.

Leiberman said he objected to the fact that the idea for the special originated with the commentary department and what he called "a very right-wing" Hyman, an on-air editorialist who has called Kerry a liar. Hyman told The Washington Post last week that he wants to put on "a balanced and honest program" and did not back off a charge that the other networks "are acting like Holocaust deniers" in ignoring the former POWs. The movie was made by Carlton Sherwood, a former journalist, Vietnam veteran and aide to Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge.

Leiberman noted that Sinclair, which has built a new studio for the program, has not done an hour-long special on any other matter related to the campaign or the war in Iraq.

© 2004 The Washington Post Company

Police State

Jacksonville, Oregon is about a ten minute drive from my birthplace. If this story does not signify the dawn of true fascism in our country, I don't know what does. Bush supporters can continue to tell themselves that the only people who are arrested or mistreated by the police in a political context are the ones who violate the law. But they would be mistaken, just as they were mistaken or unaware of the truth about what occurred during the RNC here in NY.

JACKSONVILLE, Ore. - Crawford, Texas is no stranger to protests and public gatherings, having provided a backdrop for such events for nearly four years now. Local and area law enforcement agencies have gained experience in protecting the Western White House and its famous inhabitants, and have devised a methodology for arranging for peaceful protests out of the sight and hearing of the president. But things got out of hand last week in Jacksonville, Ore., leaving some local residents there expressing fear of freely voicing their opinions. Some residents of Jacksonville feel that their First Amendment rights were taken away as they witnessed an encounter that resulted in pepper balls fired into crowds of men, women, and children as an abrupt "sweep" of a sidewalk erupted into chaos as the presidential motorcade drove by last Thursday. According to a news story in the Medford Mail Tribune, one man said he was shot in the back seven times with pepper balls (plastic paint balls filled with capsaicin). He said he saw a man get hit with a baton and fall to the ground. "With my back to the police - as I was picking him up - that's when I was shot." Trish Bowcock, a resident of Jacksonville and a retired attorney who is formerly of Austin, Texas, was an eyewitness to the disturbance and penned her impressions of the scene from a personal standpoint. She has agreed to allow The Iconoclast to reprint her thoughts. Mail Tribune staff members confirmed her contention that law enforcement concentrated on anti-Bush protestors, rather than pro-Bush demonstrators, and that the order to stop the protests came from the U.S. Secret Service. Mail Tribune coverage of the protest is available at http://www.mailtribune.com/.

Silenced by the President
By Trish Bowcock

A few weeks before my father died, he woke me in the wee hours of the morning. He needed to talk. He was worried about Attorney General John Ashcroft and the destruction of American civil liberties. I comforted my father, believing he was delusional from medications. I was wrong.

I write this from my home in Jacksonville Oregon (population 2,226). President George W. Bush came here this week. The purpose of his visit was political. Southern Oregon has been deemed a "battle ground" area in the presidential race. John Kerry has made incredible inroads in this traditionally Republican stronghold. President Bush's campaign stop was an attempt to staunch the slide.

Jacksonville is an old gold mining town. Our main street is only five blocks long, lined with restored storefronts. The sidewalks are narrow. We are a peaceful community. The prospect of an overnight presidential visit was exciting, even to me, a lifelong Democrat. My excitement turned to horror as I watched events unfold during President Bush's visit.

In the mid 1800s, when Indians invaded Jacksonville, citizens clambered upon the roof of the old library. It was the one building that would not catch fire when flaming arrows were shot. This week it was a different scene. Police armed with high powered rifles perched upon our rooftops as the presidential motorcade approached. Helicopters flew low, overhead. A cadre of motorcycle police zoomed into town. Black SUVs followed, sandwiching several black limousines carrying the president, his wife and their entourage as they sped to the local inn where they would eat and sleep.

The main street was lined with people gathered to witness the event. Many supported the president. Many did not. Some came because they were simply curious. There were men, women, young and old. The mood was somewhat festive. Supporters of John Kerry sported signs, as did supporters of George Bush. Individuals, exercising their rights of free speech began chanting. On one side of the street, shouts of "four more years" echoed in the night air. On the other side of the street, chants of "three more weeks" responded. The chants were loud and apparently could be heard by President Bush. An order was issued that the anti-Bush rhetoric be quieted. The local SWAT team leapt to action.

It happened fast. Clad in full riot gear, at least 50 officers moved in. Shouting indecipherable commands from a bullhorn, they formed a chain and bore down upon the people, only working to clear the side of the street appearing to be occupied by Kerry supporters. People tried to get out of their way. It was very crowded. There was nowhere to move. People were being crushed. They started flowing into the streets. Pleas to the officers, asking, "where to go" fell upon deaf ears. Instead, riot police fired pellets of cayenne pepper spray into the crowd. An old man fell and couldn't get up. When a young man stopped to help, he was shot in the back with hard pepper spray balls. Children were hit with pepper spray. Deemed "Protesters" people were shoved and herded down the street by the menacing line of armed riot police, until out of the President's ear-shot.

There the "Protesters" were held at bay. Anyone vocalizing anti-Bush or pro-Kerry sentiments were prohibited from venturing forward. Loud anti-Bush chants were responded to by the commanding officer stating: "FORWARD," to which the entire line of armed police would move, lock-step, toward the "Protesters," forcing backward movement. Police officers circulated filming the crowd of "Protesters." Some were people like me, quiet middle-aged women. Some sported anti-Bush signs, peace signs, or Kerry signs. A small group of youth, clad in black with kerchiefs wrapping their heads chanted slogans. A young woman in her underwear, sporting a peace sign sang a lyrical Kumbaya. Mixed among the "Protesters" were supporters of the President. One 19 year- old man shouted obscenities at anyone expressing dissatisfaction with the president, encouraging the police to "tazar" the "Stinking Protesters." Neither the "Protestors," nor the police harassed this vocal young man. Across the street, individuals shouting support for the president were allowed to continue. Officers monitored this group but allowed them to shout words of support or hurl derisions toward Kerry supporters, undisturbed. Honking cars filled with Bush supporters were left alone. A honking car full of Kerry supporters was stopped by police on its way out of town.

The standoff with "Protesters" continued until the President finished his dinner and was secured in his hotel cottage for the night. Only then were the riot police ordered to "mount-up," leaping upon the sideboard of a huge SUV, pulling out of town, and allowing "free speech" to resume.

In small town America I witnessed true repression and intimidation by law enforcement. I saw small children suffering from the effects of being fired upon by pepper bullets. I felt legitimate fear of expressing my political opinions: a brand new feeling. Newspaper accounts state the chaos started when a violent "Protester" shoved a police officer. No one I talked to witnessed this account.

It is reputed that President Bush and his staff will not allow any opposition activity to occur within his ear or eye sight. I can confirm, that in tiny Jacksonville, Oregon, this was true. Physically violent means were taken to protect the president from verbal insults. Freedom of speech was stolen.

My father was not paranoid as he lay dying. He was expressing great insight into the dangers of our current presidential administration and its willingness to repress personal freedoms. If I could talk to my father today, I would say, "I am sorry Daddy for doubting you." And, no matter what, I will continue to exercise my individual right to freely express my opinions. Americans cannot take four more years.

© Copyright 2004 The Lone Star Iconoclast.

Sitting in Limbo

I haven't been writing much about politics the past few days. I have this convoluted mess of thoughts rolling around in my head and I haven't yet found a way to sort it all out.

I read what is in the newspapers everyday. A few articles in Time. Peruse blogs and read what other people are focusing in on. Browse the latest news on the big media sites and the under reported news on some more independent sites. Trying to ascertain what I want to post about. But I feel overwhelmed and it feels like the Bush administration has provided us with so many things to be outraged about over the past four years that nothing's shocking anymore. I read the news and I think "one more nail in Dubya's coffin" but I barely feel the outrage anymore because more bad news is constantly looming overhead and there's no way to condense it all. There is one thing that still outrages me so deeply that I haven't even found the words to express it or the peace of mind to convey my thoughts clearly. That is how the issues of sexuality, reproduction and morality have become central in American politics and the presidential campaigns. My outrage comes mostly from the fact that these issues are in the political spectrum at all, when they are really religious issues which should be separated by default of the constitution. I will get to that later.

I feel frozen in anticipation of November 2nd. Suddenly paralyzed, feeling like I cannot move on. I feel like what I imagine a pregnant woman feels when she's just so ready to give birth and every day feels like a week and she's just ready to burst. When this election is over, regardless of who the winner be, I will feel a great deal of anticipation and suspense has lifted. That I can breathe again. Of course, if Bush is elected, that feeling will quickly be replaced by something akin to grieving. I will feel loss. I will feel sadness. I will feel doom. And quite honestly, I think it is more than likely that I will cry real tears of anger and frustration.

If Kerry wins, which I believe he will, I imagine I will experience the most phenomenal relief, somewhere in the realm of, oh I don't know...orgasm?

Some people may think it sad that this is how political news and events have come to dominate my headspace and that it means this much to me, but I truly believe in my heart that if Bush is re-elected it will be a severely inauspicious and disturbing signal of the direction this country is choosing to take. And it will be a rude awakening for people like me, to be faced with the ultimate realization that the majority of Americans are in a very unrealistic place in terms of their own priorities and the priorities of our nation.

Sneaky Bastard

Did anyone know that Bush was appealing to the United Nations to impose a ban on all human cloning, including that which is done for the sole purpose of stem cell research? I didn't. Sounds like he's trying to take a back door rather than confronting the American people with his intentions to ban all human cloning. Even when developed for therapeutic/medical healing purposes only. I have never known of a president who so obstinately stood in the way of scientific and medical progress. Not to mention how blatantly dishonest and evasive when it comes to stating his unequivocal position on these matters.

UN Urged to Ignore Bush Plea for Human Cloning Ban
Oct 17, 2004

LONDON (Reuters) - Britain's national academy of science urged the United Nations on Monday to ignore a call by President Bush to ban all forms of human cloning. The Royal Society said the United States should be allowed to decide whether therapeutic cloning, creating embryos as a source of stem cells to cure diseases, is prohibited within its own borders.

"But other countries, including the UK, have now passed legislation to allow carefully regulated therapeutic cloning while introducing a ban on reproductive cloning," Lord May of Oxford, the president of the society said in a statement.

Last month in a speech to the United Nations Bush called for all countries to support a ban on therapeutic and human reproductive cloning proposed by Costa Rica. May believes nations should back a Belgian proposal when the U.N. General Assembly votes on the issue later this month. The Belgian plan would outlaw human reproductive cloning but allow countries to make their own decision on therapeutic cloning.

"If this proposal was successful the United States and others would be still be free to ban all human cloning but countries that see the promise offered by therapeutic cloning can still carry out research," May explained.

Therapeutic cloning is a controversial area of research because it involves the creation and destruction of early embryos to mine them for stem cells which have the ability to develop any type of cell or tissue in the body.

Scientists believe therapeutic cloning could lead to new treatments for illnesses such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and heart disease.

The Royal Society argues that countries which allow regulated therapeutic cloning would not sign up to a convention supporting a total ban on cloning.

Although member nations would not be compelled to support a treaty banning all forms of human cloning, the society said it would place a major obstacle in the way of stem cell research.

"The US government's approach at the UN appears more designed to influence domestic legislation, where attempts to introduce a total ban have so far failed, at the expense of a workable international ban on reproductive cloning," said May.

"Indeed, the US has not yet outlawed reproductive cloning itself," he added.

Wascawy Wodents

I just really liked the title of this article and it made me laugh (probably because the whole thing reminds me of some oldtime cartoon) so I'm posting it here:

Prairie Dogs Move Into Cemetery, Bones Move Out

Oct 18, 2004

SANTA FE, N.M. (Reuters) - A happy colony of New Mexico prairie dogs hit pay dirt in a cemetery full of historic skeletons, causing grief for town officials who want to protect the final resting place of the state's notables.
Prairie dogs are gnawing their way through skeletons in a historic cemetery in Sante Fe that houses the remains of three New Mexico governors, 10 mayors and other notables. They are leaving mounds of dirt mixed with human bones in a four-acre (1.6-hectare) lot in the heart of the city.

"It's a catastrophe," Erik Mason, president of the Fairview Cemetery Preservation Association, which runs the facility, said on Friday. "I would love to take them out one by one but you can't fire a rifle in the city limits."

The city requires a humane relocation of prairie dogs, but the preservation association does not have enough money to move the large colony.

Mason said he tried different strategies to get rid of the prairie dog invasion, including putting dry ice down the holes and plugging them with newspaper.

"Nothing worked," he said.

The cute critters called prairie dogs are not dogs, but rodents, sold in many places as pets. They typically live in a family group and adults stand between 12 inches and 15 inches.

Sounds like some of the residents are itching for some target practice.

No Inhibition

I just have to say how fucking impressed I am that this woman wrote an entire post about pooping, and that so far it has received more than 450 comments. Either people love Dooce, (which would pe perfectly understandable by itself) or they just really love an opportunity to talk about ka-ka. Whatever the case, don't pass up the chance to drop by her site and share your own personal thoughts on bowel movements. This opportunity may not present itself ever again. I also suddenly feel as if the name Dooce fits her better than I had previously realized.

I've been reading so much about politics lately (and don't get me wrong, I can never seem to get enough), but that it's refreshing to hear someone just come out and talk about bodily functions and real shit rather than just the proverbial kind.

Ch-Ch-Check It Out

I encourage everyone to listen to this song and feel the love. It's best if you crank it up really loud, get out of your seat, and dance around with reckless abandon. You can also combine visual pleasure with auditory when viewing the video. Thanks to Darcie for putting this on my birthday mix. It is just one of the many songs on that cd that bring such exaltation.

Such Great Heights
by The Postal Service

I am thinking it's a sign that the freckles
In our eyes are mirror images and when
We kiss they're perfectly aligned
And I have to speculate that God himself
Did make us into corresponding shapes like
Puzzle pieces from the clay
True, it may seem like a stretch, but
Its thoughts like this that catch my troubled
Head when you're away when I am missing you to death
When you are out there on the road for
Several weeks of shows and when you scan
The radio, I hope this song will guide you home

They will see us waving from such great
Heights, 'come down now,' they'll say
But everything looks perfect from far away,
'come down now,' but we'll stay...

I tried my best to leave this all on your
Machine but the persistent beating sounded
Thin and condescending.
That frankly will not fly. You will hear
The shrillest highs and lowest lows with
The windows down when this is guiding you home

They will see us waving from such great
Heights, 'come down now,' they'll say
But everything looks perfect from far away,
'come down now,' but we'll stay...

Natural Buzz

Two things I'm really excited about:

(1) My chiropractor gave me a "Chiroflow" Waterbase pillow as a gift today. It is a pillow that has a large pocket in the back that you fill with water and it is the most comfortable thing I have ever laid my head on. I am so looking forward to sleeping in tomorrow.

and

(2) I wrote an email to the managing shareholder of our NY offices and told him that I think it would be a really great way to encourage every employee to go out and vote, if the firm let everyone out early on election day, so that people wouldn't be forced to choose between getting home to their families after a long day and commute or going to the polls to cast their vote. It worked. About ten minutes later, he sent out an email saying employees will be permitted to leave early on Nov. 2nd and stressed the importance of voting.

I was really happy about that. I felt like I did a good deed. Even if only a couple of people out of at least 500 in the NY office know that I am the one who is responsible for the early release on election day. But it gave me a sense of accomplishment and my friend (and coincidentally, our receptionist), Jen, wrote a nice testimonial in my Friendster profile about it that made me feel so good. She wrote:

THIS GIRL IS AMAZING.

Too bad she doesn't know her place...

Hahahaaa. Thanks Jen. You're the best.

Including, But Not Limited To...

I love this post at Cupie's. She really hit it where I feel I missed. You gotta check it out.

"A culture of life"? Instead of an abortion, woman should abstain from sex or adopt out the bad mistake, the rape, the incest, good times ladies, grab them coat hangers femme-nazi-terrorists, you might need them and keep in mind Dubya doesn't want to impose his religion on anyone.

The medical institutions must embrace "high technology", but don't even think about buying prescription drugs from Canada or off the internet for that matter, its wrong and illegal. God forbid we ask the pharmaceutical companies, or the FDA for that matter, to make these drugs affordable, there are mortgage's on billion dollar homes at risk, so suck up the generic drugs bitches.

Raising the minimum wage is hard work, its hard--work.

Go read it and check out her other stuff while you're there. It's good times. I'm seeing a lot of people pumping out some great writing and observations. I always love to read Cul. He posts the best articles, and often things that infuriate me beyond belief.

Sandy always entertains me with her stories. She is a great read. We have quite the internet history, me and her, and I love it that even though she and her family got moved to Germany by the military, she's still blogging her little heart out and letting us in on all her rousing daily thoughts.

Speaking of people I love to have in the blogosphere with me, I can't even describe how happy it makes me that Darcie has a blog and I can check up on her everyday! I feel like I get to be more a part of her life that way and it's fun for me.

Man, there are so many great blogs out there. I wish there was enough time in a day to keep abreast of them all. I've been exploring my comrades in the Progressive Blog Alliance, and I gotta tell you, these are some kickass comrades to have. Check them out at your leisure. I think it doubtful that you'll be disappointed.

Love

We celebrated the three year anniversary since our first kiss on October 9th. I have to give Rob credit for being so sincere, supportive, loyal, and endlessly patient throughout our relationship. Have to thank him for accepting me so completely and unconditionally. I love his sense of humor, I love when he's naughty, I love when he's nice. I love when he's scruffy and bohemian and I love how beautifully he cleans up. I love his sense of style and his curious mind. I want to kill him when he begs off from doing dishes and picking up after himself. But I'm willing to keep working with that one. Because, seriously, we've got a good thing goin' baby. I look forward to many more years with this man.

A Satisfying Fantasy

Doug wrote the best story ever about Bill O'Reilly. I dig the Men In Black feel and the gorey imagery. And the laughs! This shit is hot.

Not So Easy on the Eyes

I want everyone to try blinking really rapidly while repeating after me "I'm George Dubya Bush, and I'm asking for your VOTE."

Doesn't that feel weird? Now try giving a five minute speech while blinking really fast. Constantly. It's crazy!

I wonder how he does it.

Guess what this is

"Oh my god! It's obscene. Look at the size of it! It's huge. I don't think I've EVER seen one that big. There's no way I'm going to be able to fit my mouth around the sheer girth of it! That's just waaaay too much meat!"

Me eating the largest cheeseburger on earth for lunch today. I literally had to slice it in half lengthwise because it was staging a major coup d'état against the bun and other fine components to the tasty burger. It had avocado and bacon and cheddar and it was really, really good.

I know what my boyfriend would say: Not as good as the Burger Joint at Le Parker Meridian, nyah. But you know what? This hunk of lovin from Bully's was pretty damn close baby.

What's Wrong Baby? Don't like Loofa Mitts?

'No Spin Zone' Pundit Accused of Sexually Harassing Fox Producer

Bill O'Reilly became embroiled in a salacious "he-said-she-said" scandal yesterday, trading lawsuits with a Fox News producer who says the conservative talking head sexually harassed her.

A Fox News producer is suing the married talk show host for sexual harassment, saying he tried to have phone sex with her against her wishes three times and talked about his sexual fantasies with the woman both at work and in social situations. O'Reilly - the host of the top cable news show in America, "The O'Reilly Factor" -- countersued yesterday, claiming Andrea Mackris and her lawyer were trying to extort $60 million in "hush money."

According to the complaint filed yesterday, O'Reilly spoke explicitly to Mackris about phone sex, vibrators, threesomes, masturbation, the loss of his virginity and sexual fantasies. During a phone conversation this August, Mackris, 33, said O'Reilly suggested she buy a vibrator and was clearly excited. Before hanging up, she said, O'Reilly told her: "I appreciate the fun phone call."

She contended that he made a similar call Sept. 21, ending that one by saying: "Next time you'll come up to my hotel room and we'll make this happen." The lawsuit contends that O'Reilly's "perverted ravings" included boasts about his large manhood, his fondness for oral sex and his desire to massage her with loofa mits.

On several occasions, O'Reilly was masturbating while talking to Mackris on the phone, the suit says.

Last night on his TV show, an enraged O'Reilly lashed out at his accuser, who was also a former intern for the George H.W. Bush White House in 1991 and a graduate of Columbia Journalism School.

"[This is] the single most evil thing I've ever experienced and I've seen a lot," O'Reilly said. "But these guys have picked the wrong guy … and we'll see who's left standing at the end."

A father of two young children, O'Reilly said the charges have caused him "great mental strain, anguish and severe emotional distress." According to the harassment suit, O'Reilly took Mackris out to dinner in May with another woman in Manhattan, where he allegedly propositioned them, suggesting that the three of them "go to a hotel together and have the time of their lives." On a later date, O'Reilly told Mackris he wanted to take her to the Caribbean, where he wanted to "take a shower with (her) right away."

Mackris, according to the complaint, was repulsed by O'Reilly's verbal advances. In its lawsuit, Fox claims that Mackris never complained to Fox authorities about sexual harassment by O'Reilly before Sept. 29, when her lawyer Benedict Morelli took the case. While acknowledging that he shared "dinner and cocktails" with Mackris - and even watched a presidential press conference alone with him in his hotel room - he denied engaging in any physical or sexual assaults or "offensive touching."

Mackris, 33, worked for O'Reilly for four years before taking a job at CNN earlier this year, but the producer went back to Fox in July. According to O'Reilly's lawsuit, Morelli later showed Fox brass a draft complaint including quote by the star that led them to believe his accuser was taping their conversations.

"The length of the quotes and the specific verbiage used made it appear that Mackris was taping O'Reilly during the conversations," the lawsuit contends. O'Reilly's suit claims the charges are motivated by "greed and Morelli's political connections." Morelli, his firm, and his wife are supporters and contributors to the Democratic Party, the suit claims. It also charged the suit was timed to hit to Fox and O'Reilly just before the election.

First of all, keep in mind that I have no opinion regarding whether or not the allegations against O'Reilly are true. That's for a jury to decide. And as much as I can't stand BOR, just because he's an assmonkey, doesn't mean he's a sexual harasser, though he could be. (I wouldn't put it past him after watching the way he harasses people on his show - albeit not sexually, thank god). I love how O'Reilly likes to use stupid buzz phrases like "hush money." What does "hush money" have to do with this? She wants him to pay her to hush? I think you're well past that phase of the relationship now! The bitch just blew the door wide open bucky!

And on top of it all, it's a liberal conspiracy! Hahaaaa! That's fresh. But then again, you just never know...

A couple things don't sit well with me about this woman's story. First of all, I don't understand the concept of staying on the phone with a person who is harassing, offensive, sexually explicit or making you in any way uncomfortable. Could she say "I'm not having this conversation with you, and if you continue to talk to me like this, I'm going to do something about it and you're not going to like it." I understand being talked to in a way that makes you uncomfortable and not confronting the person or objecting to it, but this seems ridiculous! What was she doing on the other end of the line during these conversations? Giggling? Reciting her ABCs? Humming and filing her nails? I just am not getting a clear picture from this article about how these conversations actually went. Did she say "that's enough, I am not going to tolerate these offensive rantings from you anymore. If you don't stop, I'm going to take action against you"? and did he say "If you say anything to anyone I'll make sure you never work in this town again"??? I don't know.

For some reason, I feel like if this was as much of a problem as she says it was, it would have been addressed sooner. In that respect, I can imagine BOR may have a point about the timing of the filing of the complaint being synchronized with the leadup to election. All the same, I'm not ready to assume that the allegations are totally false.

And the loofa thing! Oh my god. That is just too much. Picturing BOR saying any of those things is enough to tickle my gag reflex, but the image of him saying "I want to rub you all over with loofa mitts"? That is just plain hilarious.

Note: Reading the complaint gives a clearer (and more detailed) picture of what exactly happened here.

In The Homestretch

Is it just me or was Dubya incessantly blinking during his closing statement? Rob said it's because he's always lying. Hahaa. Anyone ever see that "Girlfriends" episode where that one chick couldn't lie without blinking psychotically? Okay maybe I'm the only person on earth who watches that show, but THAT was George Bush tonight. Blinktastic.

I'm sure it comes as no surprise that I really thought Kerry did well. He's definitely a cut or two above Bush. As usual, there were a lot of things I begged Kerry to say that he didn't say. Like when Bush diverted the subject every time from jobs to education and Kerry never pointed out the fact that the "No Child Left Behind Act" wouldn't help a fifty year old worker who is educated and lost his or her job, even if the fucking program WERE funded! Bush never answered what he was doing for those people. The grown people who have lost their jobs in this country or those who have gone back to work and are making far less than ever before. Or all the kids coming out of college with good educations who can't find work in their fields and not for what they could have made doing the same job five years ago.

When they were talking about minimum wage Bush said something like "I was working on a plan to raise the minimum wage!" And then he went on to talk about something else. I thought that was a very big issue that got passed over too quickly.

I read this article that reports on a study of how many families in America live far beneath the poverty level on the current minimum wage. One out of four.

Study finds 1 in 4 working families struggle for financial survival

CHICAGO -- One out of every four working American families earns wages so low they struggle to survive financially, according to a report due out Tuesday.

These 9.2 million families include 20 million children. Their breadwinners work an average of 1.2 jobs. Most are in their prime working years. And 72 percent were born in the United States.

The study, funded by the Annie E. Casey, Ford and Rockefeller foundations, paints a portrait of janitors, cooks, cashiers and health care aides who barely make ends meet in a nation where good-paying jobs are out of reach for many.

"One emergency -- a broken down car, rent increase or serious illness -- can disrupt the families precarious equilibrium and plunge them into financial chaos," the report states. The nonpartisan report spotlights a growing disparity between low-wage earners and the educated skilled workers that U.S. businesses increasingly demand.

Its release comes in the final weeks of a heated presidential campaign in which issues concerning low-income families largely have taken a back seat to those of the middle-class and to worries about terrorism and the war in Iraq.

"What we haven't come to grips with is how large this number is" of working low-income families, said Brandon Roberts, co-author of "Working Hard, Falling Short."

"This is an issue of our national competitiveness. If these families are not poised to succeed, it should concern to all of us."

President Bush's campaign stresses tax incentives to encourage businesses to hire new workers, while Sen. John Kerry has called for an increase in the $5.15 hourly minimum wage to $7 by 2007. [Click here for complete story].

And Bush's child income tax credit helps these people, how? By giving them a very temporary padding? Raise the minimum wage! A steady increase in income to minimum wage earners is the only real solution to helping people overcome poverty. This was an issue I felt could have been discussed more in the debates. But you can't have everything you want. I understand that creating new jobs and raising the minimum wage are difficult to accomplish both at the same time, but I genuinely believe that Kerry could handle our economy far better than Bush has.

Q: Mr. President, what do you say to someone in this country who has lost his job to someone overseas who's being paid a fraction of what that job paid here in the United States?

BUSH: I'd say, Bob, I've got policies to continue to grow our economy and create the jobs of the 21st century. And here's some help for you to go get an education. Here's some help for you to go to a community college. We've expanded trade adjustment assistance. We want to help pay for you to gain the skills necessary to fill the jobs of the 21st century. You know, there's a lot of talk about how to keep the economy growing. We talk about fiscal matters. But perhaps the best way to keep jobs here in America and to keep this economy growing is to make sure our education system works.

Well I know one way that's NOT good for keeping jobs in America! By giving tax incentives to companies IN ORDER for them to go and manufacture in China. Don't tell Americans that it's their responsibility to get educated at the same time that you turn around and reward businesses for moving jobs overseas. Answer the question Mr. President!

I also would have liked it if Kerry would have pointed out Bush's flip-flop on gay marriage, when that question was brought up. I would have been glad to see him point out that Bush previously held that it was up to the individual states to decide on legislation regarding gay marriage. But then he changed his mind and decided that discrimination should be written into the constitution. I was pleased that Kerry pointed out Bush's agenda for appointing judges to the federal bench who would have an interest in overturning Roe v. Wade, and thought it was interesting that Bush refused to give a direct answer about his position on that even when asked by Bob Schieffer. He's a dodger when it comes to hard questions. Like during this new voter forum, where Bush was the only person who declined to answer this question:

When is it appropriate for a leader to change their opinion? Both sides have been accused of flip-flopping on important issues - President Bush on establishing the Dept. of Homeland Security and steel tariffs, Senator Kerry on the Iraq war. But changing opinion due to thoughtful reconsideration ought not to be derided as flip-flopping. Tell us about a time when you had an honest change of opinion on a topic of national importance. - Jeremy, 30, of WA

It was the only question in the entire forum that he declined to respond to. This is becoming a pattern.

Kerry really has his shit together and I feel a high level of faith in him right now. I think that he has what IT takes and that he could conceivably accomplish many of the plans and strategies that he wishes to set forth. I think that with him as our president, we have a much greater hope of having a better economy, a cleaner environment, more inclusive healthcare, a safer world, and a more equal, compassionate society than what we have now. He may not be a saint, but I think the man has talents and he truly deserves the opportunity to lead this country.

I can hear Guiliani on the tube in the living room spouting off with that annoying lisp of his. That man drives me to distraction. I always get the feeling that he's in a severe state of denial. He really eats up the Bushit and licks his lips/lisp afterwards like a cat that just devoured a can of tuna.

Rob likes to watch the pundits and commentators afterwards. I prefer not to watch too much of that because it feels like I don't get a chance to let what the candidates said have time to sink in. All that aurhoritative yammering on afterwards kind of clouds my image of the debate and inhibits an untainted perception of what was said. It is nice to hear and see what others thought about the debate, but for some reason I can't sit there and digest anything that tv pundits have to say immediately after. I like to feed it through my receptors first I guess.

Oh yes, and one final thing, they didn't discuss the environment at all. I think the environment is a very strong suit for Kerry and an extremely weak area for Bush. I am very disappointed that they didn't get into talking about that. But what can you do if the question is never broached? *Sigh.*

Vicious!

Caution: May Offend. Not for aunties or grandmas. Not mine anyway.

I'm about to air some dirty laundry. Gossip is sinful, I know. But, this chick is crazy. And the situation is so out of this world that I can't keep it to myself. I'm (reluctantly) going to be kind and use first letters only.

Her name is C. I knew her when I briefly lived in New Orleans with Darcie. She seems like she may have some problems. I should feel sorry for her I guess. But tonight she's on the radar and she ticked me off.

Perhaps I should provide a little background. Or perhaps not, because it's unlikely that anyone cares, but in case you're in for some juicy gossip about individuals that you don't know and wouldn't possibly concern yourself with under any other circumstances, here it is. (Begin high school sequence) Darcie is one of my best friends. You all know that. Over four years ago she moved to 'nawlins and was roommates with this guy J, who is also kind of a jackass. (I'm not going to go into all the things that have led me to that conclusion, you just have to trust me). When I came to New Orleans Darcie was in the process of making some new friends. So was J. A lot of the friends they made were the same friends. One of them was this girl, C.

So C and J got together, if you know what I mean. Not boyfriend and girlfriend, but the other thing that sometimes results in a nasty disease and a bitter bashfest shared by the girl and her female friends. When J paid no mind to C and her appeals for friendship or her endless persuit of "closure," she confided in Darcie. Who in turn, did what any good friend would do, and condemned her own roommate, J, for his trouser snake shenannigans and heartless actions, and made no real secret about it.

Then I came along. I showed up in New Orleans about six months or maybe more after Darcie and J had moved there. A lot happened in a short time. I dated this guy who was part owner of the company that Darcie and C and J all worked for. Apparently, I drunkenly devulged some private information about him one night which later reached his ears by way of C. She also went out of her way to tell J that I had given Darcie some "rent" money, which was not rent money because it was payback to Darcie for money that she'd lent me. J got mad at me and Darcie, the guy I was dating got mad at me (and almost tried to take back a really beautiful & expensive dress!), we both got pissed at C, and Darcie and I moved out of NOLA before it could all explode into an even sillier drama than it had already become. And that was that. Now before you crucify Darcie and I for being scandalous, take note, we were not the ones who were really scandalous, though we undoubtedly had our moments. Scandal just seemed to kick down our door. C was scandalous. J was scandalous. The guy I was dating...a little scandalous. Okay, okay! There's more!

Darcie and I. Gone. Guy I was dating. Forgave me. We're still friends. J. Who cares what he's doing? Apparently lives here in NY now and thinks it's "his town." Jackass. His girlfriend E? Totally unhinged. C? Beyond, beyond unhinged. Needs serious therapy. How do we know?

This all comes to a head tonight. More than three years after Darcie and I moved out of New Orleans. Darcie dropped by C's web journal and had the nerve to drop a friendly "hello." Thinking, that like any normal human being, C would have long gotten over any ill feelings or bitterness about the trivial little drama that took place in New Orleans. Well apparently it wasn't quite as trivial to C as it was to Darcie and I. See, honestly, I could have seen that girl on the street today and would have s