The Parable of The Weasel and the Music

A little story. It has no bearing on real life. It's just something to consider.

My wife is both the spiritual one in the family, and the musical one. For many years, she has been supplementing our income (sometimes very well) by directing church choirs. When I was still in the military, she often directed choirs at the base chapel. And, in fact, when I retired, she was already directing the Catholic choir on base, so she kept right on doing that.

Now, understand that she is not Catholic. However, she has often attended Episcopalian churches, which she likes to say is Catholic Lite: all the liturgy, but none of the Pope. (OK, technically, that last bit is mine. She does call it "Catholic Lite," but she's always careful not to say anything that could be taken as derogatory toward Catholicism, especially when she's working with Catholics. But I'm not as careful as she is...)

There are actually two Catholic services on base: the traditional service on Sunday morning, and a more "contemporary" service on Saturday evening. (If you can call anything "contemporary" that's based on almost 2000 years of tradition, anyway...)

Now, here's one place that military chapels differ from a regular church. A lot more military people go there. (Gee, I'll bet you could have figured that one out on your own, couldn't you?) And the Saturday service was directed by a colonel who we'll call "Col. Moon."

OK, in the interests of full disclosure here, let me explain that the choir directors are contractors, and by law, contractors to the military cannot be active-duty military. That's just how it is. So, technically, Col. Moon was not the choir director. His wife, a fairly drab woman named.... um... we'll just call her "Alice"... anyway, Alice was officially the director, but her husband was one of those pushy, annoying military types. He also, for no obvious reason, thought that he was musically talented.

In fact, let me just rant about Col. Moon for a while. In the course of 21 years in the Air Force, I worked with a number of officers, and he was definitely one of the worst. He was always confident in the absolute correctness of every thought that wandered quietly through that dark, empty place he called a brain. He was positive that he knew more about Catholicism than the priest, and he was also positive that he knew more about music than my wife, an operatically-trained spinto soprano with 41 years of training in every variety of music.

A quick aside about my wife: aside from her incredible voice, she can play piano and guitar, and she taught herself to play organ for a traditional church-sound in the services. She has played folk music, rock, jazz, classical music, gospel (she's pretty white, but she tries), opera (obviously), and in fact, two decades ago, she stage-managed for a jazz-bluegrass fusion band that is still touring (but without her, obviously). She even played backup for a kathakali troupe at one point.

So maybe she knows what she's talking about musically. What'd'ya think?

But none of that mattered to Col. Moon. Basically, he had two problems with my wife. The first was, obviously, her lack of papal attachment. And secondly, she is obviously much more musically talented than he is, and his tiny little ego couldn't take it.

Moon is not a popular man, incidentally. If he outranks you, he is dismissive with your opinions and vaguely abusive, so his subordinates don't like him. The computer people don't like him, because he can cause system-destroying errors in electronics merely by sitting in front of the keyboard. And the people who work in the chapel don't like him because he thinks that, by being a colonel, he is in charge of everything around him.

Just so you know, even though, as a colonel, Moon is relatively high-ranking, that's not how things work. An officer is only in charge of what he has been assigned as a job. But somehow, Moon has picked up the same opinion that a lot of scientists get - since he's an expert in one field, he must obviously be an expert in everything.

Now, here's where it gets weird. The priest was very happy with my wife's ability as a musician, and since Moon was leaving, Father Tim wanted her to take over the Saturday Mass, too. Nobody's sure why - maybe he just wanted to get good music in that service, too. It's hard to tell. But he set up the new contract so that one person would be in charge of both services.

To take this contract, you had to submit a résumé, and then a panel selected by the Parish Council questioned you. But we weren't too worried - my wife had years of experience, and a proven track record.

This wasn't news that Moon wanted to hear. His ego couldn't take it, apparently. Now, remember, he was leaving, and so he wouldn't be around to see her anymore. But the strain of using logic was too much for his little reptilian brain.

Moon wanted so badly to keep my wife out of "his" service that he started lobbying for another member of the congregation to take over, a woman who we'll call Nadine. And then, as a form of insurance, he brought in a ringer, a guy with no connection to the military, who'd never even attended the base chapel.

(Technically, that didn't work out too well for him. Take a note here - if you're going to bring in a ringer, the best choice would be a reliable ringer. Somebody, maybe, who will show up for his interview. It's just a thought.)

Anyway, back to our story. In his desperation to screw over my wife, Moon tried to get on the panel to appoint his successor. But that wasn't going to happen. The chapel manager, Don, saw from the beginning what Moon was trying to do, and was having none of it.

So Moon's next trick was to explain that he needed to act as an expert witness for the panel, essentially. He tried to explain that he was the only person who could understand that highly-technical musical jargon that my wife was going to start spewing. That didn't work either.

So, in desperation, Moon did what any reasonable person would do. He cheated.

We're not sure how he did it - whether he stacked the panel, threatened them with his lofty colonel's rank or what. But after extensive talking to the members of the panel, suddenly Nadine was selected to take over both services, and my wife was out of a job.

Oh, well. That's the way things work sometimes, right? Luck of the draw. This is all just sour grapes on my part, right?

Not so much. You see, when I went looking for Don after the panel interviewed everyone, I noticed that he had left the results on his desk. And you know how they voted?

A whole lifetime of music on my wife's part, and wide-ranging levels of experience at composing, directing, teaching, scoring, and playing instruments; she has literally been directing choirs for decades (two of them, but "decades"), and has sung in choirs for even longer. Nadine had a degree in music, and she taught in the elementary school system some years back. But Nadine scored higher than my wife in "Experience."

My wife had worked with both the Protestant and Catholic sides of the chapel. She'd organized a number of ecumenical services. (Ecumenical - a fancy word that just means "all the services working together" - you know, that whole mythical "spirit of Christian brotherhood" thing.) Nadine admitted that she might have met a Protestant at some point in her life, but she didn't socialize with any of them on a regular basis. But in the rating for "Plurality" ("How well can you work with other faiths?"), she scored top marks across the board, and Annette was marked down.

And here's the kicker. My wife, figuring that this was a job interview, wore a skirt, a nice blouse, some tasteful jewelry. Nadine went to see them in jeans and a tee shirt. And guess who scored higher in "Appearance"?

Are you starting to see a pattern here?

My wife was pretty upset for a day or so. She'd gone from having a job, to needing to go find work. Her talent had been ignored. Her music (which is a large part of her self-image) was ignored, for petty partisan reasons.

However, do you recall that old saying about "the best-laid plans?" See, Moon had subverted at least a few members of the panel, but guess who he hadn't turned to the Dark Side?

Nadine.

It seems that Nadine had no interest in conducting two choirs. She just wanted to work with one of them. So she subcontracted Annette to continue directing her own service. But, as the primary contractor, it was Nadine who had to go to Parish Council meetings, do paperwork, sign forms, and generally do all the administrative details that my wife hates.

So, as all this boils down, my wife is doing the same job, for the same amount of money, but with less stress. Moon has shown himself to be a vicious, backstabbing weasel. And when Nadine goes on vacation (as she does for several months out of the year), you know who's going to be directing "Col. Moon's choir"?

My wife. Now I've just got to make sure that he knows that. (Not that I'm petty or anything.)

Of course, you realize that none of this actually happened or anything. It's just a parable. It wasn't an example of God looking down on his people (not that I really hold a lot of truck with that anyway). Not anything remotely related to reality.

What's that newly-popular word? Oh, yeah.

Schadenfreude.

Xenu Loves Me, This I Know...

Scientology has been in the news a lot lately: everywhere from Isaac Hayes leaving South Park, to intimate discussions of Katie Holmes' pregnancy and Tom Cruise's public melt-down. But how much do you know about Scientology?

From the outside, Scientology looks like a combination of a religion and a social club ("Save your soul, and network with the stars, all at the same time!"). But once they get you into their clutches, they'll explain how all of your problems are due to some psychological blockages that they can cure (Of course, it's not really a "psychological" block, because they hate psychology... so it's a blockage... maybe it's a "Thetan blockage"... oh, just keep reading, maybe you'll understand soon... maybe not...). Then they put you through a combination of religious training and brainwashing, all in the name of "helping" you. And you get pulled into their cult gradually. Almost painlessly.

I'm sorry. Did that last paragraph sound a little negative? Well, let's look at their core beliefs. (Hold on, this is kind of a bumpy ride.)

You see, 75 million years ago, there was a huge space empire run by a guy named Xenu. He gathered together billions of dissidents from all over his empire, transported them to Earth, and piled them up around volcanoes. He then blew up the volcanoes with hydrogen bombs. But these dead people didn't disappear. Their souls stayed on Earth, and clustered around all of the survivors. This is one of those "blockages" that Scientologists want to help you with. It's called "Incident II," and they cure you by locating clusters of "body Thetans" and peeling them off of you.

OK, "peeling them off" isn't quite right. But if I said that they located them telepathically, would that sound any less crazy? But I'm getting ahead of myself.

Now, all of these "Thetans" (remember them? They're the souls of the people Xenu blew up) were gathered up by Xenu's forces using electronic ribbons, and taken to get processed (they call this the "R-6 Implant") in what looked like giant movie theaters, where they were brainwashed with "all kinds of misleading information." As a result of this processing, humanity gets religion, psychology, and doesn't believe science fiction (but, oddly enough, it doesn't keep us from watching movies).

Once they were processed, these Thetans also lost their sense of personal identity, which is why they started clustering around the surviving humans.

You can understand why something like that would be traumatic, right?

Now, L. Ron Hubbard wrote a lot of this stuff down in 1967 and 1968, while drunk and on drugs (as he said in a letter to his wife, "I'm drinking lots of rum and taking pinks and grays"). But he probably developed these ideas before 1960, when he published a book called Have You Lived Before This Life?, where he gave details of 41 case studies of Scientologists and their memories of reincarnation. (He didn't actually write the book; it was put together by Scientological "auditors," which is what they call the guys who run the "e-meters." I would explain e-meters, but pseudoscience just makes me tired.)

There are plenty of other details to the story, about how Earth (or "Teegeeack") was actually a prison planet, run by evil beings ("entheta"), but why go on? With Scientology, you get to learn the "actual history" of Earth and the universe by going through training. The whole Xenu story is revealed in OT III ("Operational Thetan, Level III").

Scientologists are a secretive bunch, and don't like letting the details out. So how, you might ask, do we know all this information about them? Well, some people go through the training, and the brainwashing doesn't take. Robert Kaufman, for example, wrote a book in 1972 called Inside Scientology: How I Joined Scientology and Became Super Human. And the Church of Scientology sued Steven Fishman, who claimed that he had been assigned to murder his psychologist (Dr. Uwe Geertz) and then commit suicide. And in the course of Church of Scientology International v. Fishman and Geertz, Fishman introduced, as evidence, the textbooks for OT-I through OT-VII. (There was apparently also a fake document, claiming to be OT-VIII, which talked about pedophilia being a good thing. But let's not deal with all that.)

That is how Scientology tries to protect itself. It sues. They've never argued that the OT-I through VII documents were lies. Instead, they have gone to court claiming copyright violation, and several times they’ve said that even rewording the documents would reveal trade secrets. And they've sued a bunch of Internet providers for reprinting the documents, too. Fortunately, since the entire story was introduced in court documents, it’s all available for people to read.

Do your own research. Check Wikipedia. (And then, because it's Wikipedia, verify everything.)

None of this stuff really affects most people's lives. But it does get in the news once in a while. Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes are obvious examples. Plus, there's the South Park controversy. Matt Stone and Trey Parker, the creators of the show, had an episode where they revealed most of the Xenu story, with a footnote at the bottom of the screen reading "This is what Scientologists actually believe." They were going to rerun the episode on March 15, 2005. On March 13, Isaac Hayes released a statement that he was quitting because Stone and Parker were insensitive to "personal spiritual beliefs." (It’s possible that he never released this statement directly, since he apparently suffered a stroke in January and hadn’t been seen by his friends since then.)

Finally, Comedy Central pulled the episode and replaced it with the "Chef's Salty Chocolate Balls" episode. (If you've seen the show, I don't need to explain that last sentence. If you haven't... well, hell, I'm not even going to try to explain...) Why would they do pull the episode? Well, remember that Viacom owns Comedy Central. Viacom is also tied to Paramount, which was about to release Mission Impossible III. And there are some anonymous sources who've suggested that Tom Cruise threatened not to promote the movie.

I don't know the truth. I just lay out the facts. You figure it out. But remember that Stone and Parker released a statement to Daily Variety where they said:

So, Scientology, you may have won THIS battle, but the million-year war for earth has just begun! Temporarily anozinizing our episode will NOT stop us from keeping Thetans forever trapped in your pitiful man-bodies. Curses and drat! You have obstructed us for now, but your feeble bid to save humanity will fail! Hail Xenu!!!

It sounds a little odd that thousands of people have been taken in by this crappy science fiction script. But remember that billions of people have believed in an invisible man in the sky who, despite being omnipotent and omniscient, gets testy if you don't debase yourself to him every day. (See? It hurts when it's your religion that's getting mocked, doesn't it?)

I just know one thing. Scientology must be destroyed. But not because it's a cult: I don't care about that. All I know is, they're responsible for that steaming cinematic turd called Battlefield Earth.

That's enough reason for me.

Easter - Jesus gets hammered and learns about rock and roll

Every religion sells something. But Christianity seems to lead the pack in salesmanship. Christianity is the dominant religion in the United States: is it an aspect of the "Yankee Trader" mentality? Or is the less-abrasive "Christian Left" trying to become its own subculture?

(Didn't Jesus once throw the money-changers out of the temple? I have some vague memory about that... And by the way, did you notice that several churches are holding an Easter sunrise service. See? SON-rise? That's because God loves puns.)

Despite the various efforts of some of the less-ethical media to sell us on the idea of "the Hijacking of Easter," Christianity seems to be alive and well in America today, and available on every street corner, and at every price range.

The selling of a religion can take many forms, from the somewhat classier jewelry merchants, to the potentially-blasphemous Crucifix Dildo. Depending on your tastes, you can find a religious diet book (What Would Jesus Eat?), or an entire line of Biblically-based nutritional supplements. There have always been religious books, but the Word of God can now be found in every form of media, even video games. (There's even a long-running series of super-hero videos starring Willie Ames, of "Eight is Enough" fame.) And particularly since Mel Gibson made his movie, although it's still difficult to find a piece of the True Cross, you can, once again, find "Passion Nails" and other simulated relics (not to mention an endless supply of end-times literature). Some of the more egregious examples have been collected here.

And it doesn't stop with simple religion. Easter in America has, for many years, been a celebration of commerce. Although military-themed Easter baskets didn't go over real well, the more traditional Easter baskets filled with fluffy bunnies and ducks are widely available. Ignoring the possible correlation between pagan and Easter symbology, you can find children's bibles right next to decorated eggs.

Despite the prevalence of chocolate rabbits and marshmallow ducks, you can easily find other types of Christian-themed candy (although if you're not careful, you might find chocolate-covered mushrooms).

However, there is another style of Christian marketing, one that tries to emulate the mainstream culture. It's a lifestyle more comfortable with t-shirts than shirt-and-tie, one that wants to relax and listen to music.
Is this the face of the new evangelist, is it watered-down Christianity, or is it just another face of Mammon?

Benzene: The Choice Of A New Generation!

I had a paranoid moment last week.

It wasn't that anything actually happened to me. It was simply that a couple of facts came to my attention at the same time. Now, combine that with the flu that I'm fighting off, and you end up with the perfect brain setting for paranoia.

You see, the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) has acknowledged that benzene, a cancer-causing chemical, has been found in soft drinks at levels that far exceed the amount considered safe for drinking water.

But the federal government insists there is no cause for concern. While they accept that benzene is a dangerous chemical, they insist that the new findings are not placing anyone at risk.

Strangely enough, by admitting that the levels of benzene are higher than previously estimated, the FDA is contradicting a statement they issued last week, when officials said they had found only insignificant levels of benzene in soda. "We haven't changed our view that right now, there is not a safety concern, not a public health concern," said FDA official Laura Tarantino, "but what we need to do is understand how benzene forms and to ensure the industry is doing everything to avoid those circumstances."

A different study found the amount of benzene in 19 of 24 samples of diet sodas was, on average, four times the levels accepted in tap water. Tarantino says those chemists are overestimating the amount of benzene, and the FDA is not yet ready to release the results of their own study of benzene in soft drinks.

The Environmental Working Group says that the FDA is supressing this information. "If they're so confident the situation is not a safety risk, they need to release the data to prove it," said Richard Wiles, the group's senior vice president. "The only data available to the public contradict their claim."

Coincidentally, when the tobacco corporations were forced to reveal a list of the dangerous chemicals in their products, they also failed to mention benzene. In this case, though, it was completely understandable. Benzene does not need to be added to tobacco, because it forms naturally when you burn it.

Benzene is, of course, not the only risk associated with soft drinks. Despite studies showing that habitual coffee use will not increase rates of high blood pressure in women, apparently drinking a cola will. And aside from obesity, soft drinks are suggested as the cause of other health problems.

Of course, despite numerous studies showing the links between soft drinks and poor health, there will always be a dissenting opinion. And, as usual, that opinion can be found on Fox News.

So, if everybody except Fox News thinks that something is bad, I'll admit that I usually figure that Fox News is wrong. (Let's just say "they're wrong." We don't have to argue about why they're wrong, do we? After all, I can't think of any way that it would benefit a major news corporation if they always changed stories to reflect what the White House wants to hear. Can you?)

In March of 2005, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) set limits on the amounts of mercury that could be emitted by power plants. At the time, the EPA said that they couldn't make the limits more "aggressive" because the cost to the industry was already more than the public health benefit.

Which would have been true, if they weren't ignoring a study by Harvard University that said that slightly greater limits would have health benefits worth more than five billion dollars per year, but would cost the industry three quarters of a billion dollars.

This was a study that the EPA had paid for, that was co-authored by an EPA scientist, and that was peer-reviewed by two other EPA scientists. In common language, the EPA wasted our tax dollars to ignore a study that might have made Americans healthier.

At first, the EPA claimed that the study results didn't get to them in time for their deadline. When interviews and documents proved that to be a lie, they switched their stories, and claimed that the Harvard study was using "flawed" data about the heart problems caused by mercury contamination. They did manage to stick by their original claim that the health benefits would only be around fifty million dollars, though.

The government's action is probably completely unrelated to the fact that the EPA dismantled a previous working group on mercury, just as they were about to require much more stringent regulations from all coal-burning power plants in America.

With their new ruling, the EPA completely ignored previous studies that showed that mercury contamination in seafood caused irreversible damage not only to the hearts of adults, but to brain functions in infants.

Let's repeat the most important word there: "irreversible." As in "can't be fixed." The EPA had accepted those studies at the time, and as a result, had already suggested that pregnant women limit their intake of seafood to no more than twelve ounces per week.

Remember the Office of National Drug Control Policy (the ONDCP), the guys who make those stupid anti-drug ads? Here's what they have to say about inhalants:

Upon inhalation, the body becomes starved of oxygen, forcing the heart to beat more rapidly in an attempt to increase blood flow to the brain. The user initially experiences stimulation, a loss of inhibition, and a distorted perception of reality and spatial relations. After a few minutes, the senses become depressed and a sense of lethargy arises as the body attempts to stabilize blood flow to the brain, usually referred to as a "head rush."

Did you follow that? If the brain isn't getting enough oxygen, the body tries to compensate, and the owner of that body (and by extention, that brain) gets high.

Damage is also caused to the cerebral cortex and the cerebellum, resulting in personality changes, memory impairment, hallucinations, loss of coordination, and slurred speech.

Part of that damage is caused by the chemicals that are being inhaled, of course. But part of the damage is caused by oxygen starvation to the brain. Now, let's see if you can remember that high school biology class. What carries oxygen to the brain? That's right: red blood cells. And remember that benzene that the government is allowing into our sodas? Do you know what it does to the body, aside from causing cancer?

The major effect of benzene from long-term exposure is on the blood. (Long-term exposure means exposure of a year or more.) Benzene causes harmful effects on the bone marrow and can cause a decrease in red blood cells, leading to anemia.

So, what do you think would happen over a long period of time if the brain couldn't get enough oxygen because the blood couldn't carry it?

That's right. Brain damage.

So, here we have the US government allowing mercury, which is known to cause brain damage, into the environment. And then it allows benzene, which could cause brain damage if it was consumed over a long period of time, into our sodas.

And I have two teen-aged sons. I know exactly how much soda they'll drink if you leave them alone. (OK, one of them is twenty. If you squint your eyes just right, he's not technically a "teenager" any more. He still sucks down soda like a vacuum pump.)

So that's why I had my paranoid moment. Can you imagine why a government that isn't very good about hiding their lies might appreciate a brain-damaged electorate?

But with a little further thought, I realized that I was giving too much credit to the planning abilities of that same government. Why set up an elaborate, long-term plan when simple, short-term stupidity is more likely to be the cause?

They didn't let mercury into the fish and into the air around the coal-burning plants because they wanted people to get mercury poisoning. They did it because it would cost less if the corporations didn't have to pay to get the mercury out. For that matter, they didn't let benzene into the sodas because they wanted people sucking down quarts of poison every day. It would just cost the soda companies money to take it out. The problem isn't that the government is trying to harm the American people. It's that the government doesn't care.

And what about the corporations who are making all this money off of the people? Shouldn't they care about the fact that if the people are all dead, there won't be anybody left to buy the products?

You know, there's a very strong movement out there to prevent sex education, limit birth control, and outlaw abortion. I wonder why that would be?

Aw, crap. Now I'm having another one of those paranoid moments...

-----

Update: May 22, 2006
And will you look at what happens almost two months after I posted this? It seems that the FDA finally released their results. Out of only 100 drinks that they tested (not just sodas -- "drinks" -- anybody want to try and figure out how many thousands of drinks are on the market today?), they found five with more than the 5 parts per billion limit that they set. One of them (Safeway Select Diet Orange) had 79 parts per billion.

The article then goes on to explain the various health risks associated with benzene:

As well as being linked to many health disorders, respiratory and skin problems, blood disorders, high benzene exposure is linked to the following cancers:

-- ALL (acute lymphocytic leukemia)
-- AML (acute myelogenous leukaemia)
-- CLL (chronic lymphocytic leukemia)
-- CML chronic myelogenous leukemia)
-- HCL (hairy cell leukemia)
-- Hodgkin's disease
-- MDS (myelodysplastic syndrome)
-- Multiple myeloma
-- NHL (non-Hodgkin's lymphoma)

So, hey, enjoy that soda.

By the way, despite the title of this entry, Coca Cola doesn't have either sodium benzoate or potassium benzoate. However, most of the other varieties (Diet Coke, Cherry Vanilla Honey Almond Licorice Coke, and all of 'em like that) do. Read your labels.

How to end up a zookeeper without even trying

Here's how you, too, can find yourself living in a zoo.

I spent 21 years as a military cop, and one of the many lessons I've learned is that, according to criminals, the best burglar alarm is not electronic, and is not some kind of mechanical, Bugs Bunny-style Acme Safe with optional explosive trapdoor. It's a dog. So for many years now, we've had a medium-sized dog running around the house.

Not a useless little yappy dog, but a good German Shepherd-sized, fang-laden, friendly (but slightly territorial), four-legged burglar alarm.

My wife, however, is a cat person. She's happiest if she has a small bundle of fur purring in her lap. So, for many years, we've had two cats to keep each other company. Bucky (short for Buckethead) has grown into a fairly relaxed, if stubborn, old matriarch, and Phantom (because he has a mask like the Phantom of the Opera).

My youngest son has a bearded dragon, a 25" lizard, which stays in his room and hardly infringes on my life, so, other than to mention that we go through about a dozen crickets every two days, we won't really deal with him much.

Now, our primary dog, Tasha is a Labrador /German Shepherd mix: a lab/shep, in the simplified shorthand that we like to use. She is an even-tempered, pure-black German Shepherd in appearance, with a Labrador undercoat and webbed feed, so she swims like a fish and shakes off water like a seal.

So, of course, we brought her to Albuquerque. Where else would you take a water-loving dog but the middle of the high desert?

She has one minor personality quirk. When we lived in Cheyenne, Wyoming, we didn't have a fenced backyard, so we put her on a run. And there she was, tied up, when a pack of dogs came along and attacked her. So she's never really gotten along with other dogs. Cats, yes. But dogs, no.

As she got older, we knew we were eventually going to have to replace her, and we thought it might be nice if she had somebody to play with. So last year, we got a puppy. Like all of our dogs, he came from the pound. We're reasonably certain that he's a Chesapeake Bay Retriever - a light chocolate-brown shorthair.

And sure enough, her maternal instinct overcame her dislike of other canines, and we were allowed to bring Boris into our house.

Unfortunately, as Boris got older, we discovered a minor problem - he's an idiot. Dumb as a bag of hammers. This might partly be due to a badly-healed skull-fracture that the vet discovered, which also led to his nose curving ever-so-slightly to the right. It might be due to the fact that Chesapeake Bay Retrievers are known to be a little vague. Or it might just be that he doesn't even have two brain cells to rub together.

Whatever the reason, we have Natasha and Boris. Tasha is a dignified, intelligent, beautiful beast, and Boris is both moose and squirrel rolled into one dust-covered package. He's lazy - he doesn't just sit, he'll lie down, or he'll lean against a wall. Some stray atom of thought will roll through the dark recesses of his skull, and he'll go bounding down the hall, running into walls, and either skid to a stop in the living room or ram, full-speed, into some piece of furniture. And then he'll stand there, looking around confused, because whatever phantom had momentarily interested him has apparently vanished into thin air.

Boris is also extremely friendly. He loves other dogs, people, cats, birds - anything that moves is his friend. We have hopes that a burglar breaks into our house while Tasha is still around, because left to his own devices, Boris will lick their faces and show them where we store the good china and the big TV.

So, there we were, with two dogs, two cats, and a lizard. Enough animals for one family, right?

Oh, no. My daughter Nicole broke up with her boyfriend, and the only thing that could console her was a kitten. So she ended up getting Pandora, a little black kitten with the strangest needy spells - she'll suddenly realize that she's alone in the world, and nothing can console her except to be held and actively petted. Which can be annoying at 2 a.m., by the way.

And I put my foot down. "We're done. No more animals." Is that unreasonable of me? We don't have a big enough house for the five humans we have living in it, and we're suddenly outnumbered by the animals! How the hell does this happen?

It just does.

But never make magnanimous statements like "Nope. No. More. Animals." Because Fate loves to hear a challenge like that.

My older son brought home another kitten one day, a younger version of Bucky. My first words, upon seeing this cat, were "Nope. We aren't taking it." And being a relatively reasonable human being, Luke (that's my older son) agreed that, indeed, we had no need of another cat. We were just watching it for his girlfriend, who'd be taking it off our hands any day now.

Well, as days rolled into weeks, we discovered why his wannabe-Goth girlfriend wasn't taking the kitten. She already had two cats at home, and she needed to get rid of them first. Or, more accurately, somebody else needed to get rid of these cats for her, because her family had apparently turned in their quota of cats to the pound already that year.

Luke's now-former girlfriend liked kittens, but once they weren't kittens any more, it seems that she didn't want them any more. So she wanted Luke and one of his other friends to each take one down to the pound, so that she could clear her house of cats, and her parents would let her have a new one.

That was a little too much for me. Nobody's going to kill two adult cats just to get a replacement, who'd probably suffer the same fate as she also grew into an adult (as kittens tend to do, after all). So, against my better judgment, we ended up with a fourth cat.

Did I mention that Luke's now-ex-girlfriend wanted to be a Goth? She did. And she'd named the cat Abandon. Stupidest damned name in the world: a verb, present tense, with negative qualities (like, say, Sting). So we truncated it, to Abby (or, occasionally, when she's particularly dim, Abby-normal, in honor of Mel Brooks).

That's how you end up living in a zoo. It's not your fault, it just happens.

And somehow, I have the feeling that, even if we can ever convince the kids to move out, the animals are going to stay.

Because that seems to be how my life works.

The Brief Rise and Quick Fall of Ben Domenech

The Washington Post's online arm, blog.washingtonpost.com last week decided to expand their readership and hire a rabid conservative. Their choice for this noble purpose was a young, home-schooled former speechwriter named Ben Domenech. Three days after his first post, he resigned due to allegations of plagiarism.

A brief synopsis of the furor in the blogosphere was published on Editor and Publisher. And the entire run of Benny's column can, at the moment, be found here. Three days, six posts (seven, if you count his self-aggrandizing bio), and a resignation notice from the editor.

During those three days, left-leaning bloggers everywhere went digging through his earlier writing, and turned up ample evidence that Benny wasn't always as original as he could have been, and often had a difficult time with that elusive concept, "the truth." Atrios discovered that Spinsanity had mentioned him - by name - for lying, back in 2002. His fascinating point of view was trotted out into the open, as was his taste in movies. And Talking Points Memo actually managed to link him to Jack Abramoff. By the time they were done, even the equally-rabid Michelle Malkin couldn't back away from this kid fast enough.

Under his RedState.com pen name, "Augustine," Benny wrote a relatively pissy retrospective of his brief mainstream-blogging career, wherein he explained "I am a conservative, not a partisan," among other fascinating insights into his attitude toward the truth. One of the excuses he offered for, in this case, plagiarizing P.J. O'Rourke, is as follows:

But the truth is that I had met P.J. at a Republican event and asked his permission to do a college-specific version of his classic piece on partying. He granted permission, the piece was cleared with my editors at the paper, and it ran as inspired by O'Rourke's original.

Strangely enough, if you do a little research and dig up the article in question, nowhere does it mention P.J. O'Rourke, nor does it reference his book "Modern Manners," the source of Benny's column.

Let's compare. Here's Ben Domenech, from his Flat Hat article:

Real parties vary tremendously in type and style, but I've noticed they all share certain things in common.

- Real parties don't start until after midnight. - No friendships or romantic relationships should survive a real party fully intact.
- Neither should much furniture.
- Someone should be wearing undergarments on his head by 2 a.m.
- By 3 a.m., someone should have called the police.
- Someone else should have called George Bush long distance to invite him over.

And here's P.J. O'Rourke, from Modern Manners:

Real parties vary tremendously in type and style, but all share certain things in common.

- Real parties don't start until after midnight.
- No friendships or romantic relationships should survive a real party fully intact.
- Neither should much furniture.
- Someone should have underpants on his head by 2 a.m.
- By 3 a.m., someone should have called the police.
- Someone else should have called George Bush long distance to invite him over.

I see the difference: Benny added "I've noticed" in the first line, and used "undergarments" instead of "underpants." It's a completely different bit. (That's called the "Vanilla Ice defense" - claiming that a single changed note at the end of a line made "Ice Ice Baby" entirely different from David Bowie and Queen's song "Under Pressure.")

The Flat Hat, the student newspaper of William and Mary College, where Ben got his extra-domiciliary education, was the source of many of the plagiarized articles in question. The Flat Hat editors refuted Benny's claim that they were either complicit with or responsible for Domenech's plagiarism.

So many examples of Domenech's repeated acts of literary theft were turned up that only one question is left. In the bio on his deceased WaPo blog, we find the following statement:

Ben is now a book editor for Regnery Publishing, where he has edited multiple bestsellers and books by Michelle Malkin, Ramesh Ponnuru, and Hugh Hewitt.

So you have to ask yourself: what are Regnery's standards, and how do they feel about plagiarism?

Len Hart on H.L. Mencken

I seem to be posting other people's work as often as my own, of late. But we have here, in the midst of a longer pro-Mencken piece by Len Hart, in his blog The Existentialist Cowboy, a literate description of the problem with American discourse these days.

Dr. John Lienhard, whose Engines of Our Ingenuity is a nationally syndicated radio program, called Mencken a brilliant iconoclast "...who knew language and who wielded it like a surgical laser." To be honest, I wish I had that gift. I would turn it upon what appears to be a deliberate attempt to water down the language, rob it of its power, and reframe debates to right wing advantage.

Terms like "pro-life" and "death tax" are conservative inventions designed to tilt the debate. Progressives lose by merely using those terms. Doing so legitimizes them; liberals lose. Pro-life is deliberately intended to disguise conservative hypocrisy with respect to partial-birth abortions —itself a misnomer designed to reframe the debate. [See: About "partial birth abortion" (a total misnomer)]. The term pro-life tends also to restrict the debate; those opposed to conservatives must, therefore, be opposed to life. It is easier to get away with non-sequitur logic if the very terminology seems to compel it. The modern right wing uses language like Edward I used the archer's fussilade into melees in which his own soldiers were embattled. He was willing to sustain the loss of life for the ultimate victory on the field.

In fairness, anyone claiming to be "pro-life" must also be anti-aggressive war, especially when that war causes the violent deaths of thousands of civilians —many just kids and infants. But perhaps for the pro-life crowd, life is only sacred when it's still inside the womb, but fair game once birthed.

In his day, Mencken towered above his peers. But because Mencken would not countenance or buy into the sloppy use of language today, he would be hard pressed to get published in the corporate media which would subject it to focus groups, tedious research, and the gospel of PC. It is our loss.

Sadly, Mencken seems all but forgotten among the general populace, and, among those who know his name, he is often thought to be liberal. Mencken was, in fact, a libertarian and an individualist.

Mencken's audience was not one of poltroonish ignoramuses; rather, he wrote for the intelligent few. Clearly, his intention was to make a difference by making a point among those who could make a difference with the mere public expression of an informed decision. Surely, he hopes to help shape that opinion. There is no way of knowing whether or not he succeeded.

It is for that reason, obviously, that Mencken wrote more about the American Language than anyone. He would be angered by the meaningless platitudes that often parade as literate speech or political debate; he would snort at puffed up slogans like family values and compassionate conservatism; he would slice and dice pure bunkum like supply side economics.

The best example is still the word liberal —the successful debasement of which spelled doom for the liberal movement. Now liberals feel obliged to change the name of their movement to progressive.

Liberal once meant "free" but that predates Joseph McCarthy, Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, Karl Rove and the current occupant of the Oval Office. In each case and many more, language itself is attacked, exploited, degraded and debased by those motivated to cloak a disingenuous agenda.

The word Liberal derives from the latin "liberalis", meaning "pertaining to a free man". Other words from that root are "liberty," "liberation," and libertarian, and, of course Liberal. It is the "liberte" in the French rallying cry: "Liberte, Fraternite, Egalite." To be "Liberal," therefore, is to be free, to believe in freedom. Those opposed to liberal are therefore opposed to "freedom". That describes the American right wing, its recent bent toward totalitarianism, its successful attempts to link Liberal with waste, communism, Keynesian economics, and big government. It is ironic that both big government (under Reagan) and Keynesian economics (under Bush) have ostensibly been embraced by the Republican rank and file even as they denounce the "liberals" who presumably espouse it. I think the word for that is hypocrisy —a word not found in the modern conservative lexicon.

The epithet "big government Liberal" in the mouths of a Republican is oxymoronic, hypocritical and ludicrous. Nixon said "...we're all Keynesians now" and it was Nixon, of course, who is known for the very un-conservative imposition of wage and price controls, a draconian measure of big government if there ever was one. The biggest U.S. governments since World War II have all been of GOP creation. It was the Democrats who were tarred with the label "tax and spend", but, in reality, it is the GOP that presided over the largest military build up in the world and it has done so upon the backs of those who can least afford it.

Proportionally, the biggest tax burdens have fallen upon lower and middle income earners —the very groups who lost ground over a period of some 30 years. It was over that period of time that the incomes of the upper one percent of the U.S. population increased exponentially. Only the upper quintile prospered; everyone else lost ground.

Bush doesn't do nuance. And that is a shame; someone, somewhere feels pain everytime Bush fails to do a nuance. Can you imagine explaining Adam Smith, Malthus, Ricardo, or Keynes to G. W. Bush —a man who claims to be conservative but would be hard pressed to tell you why?

What is to be said of someone who refuses to be informed? Is this the root of Bush antipathy to the Constitution —or is his ignorance a disingenuous act to conceal the real reasons that he would subvert the underpinnings of American democracy? I am, admittedly, overly fond of quoting Bertolt Brecht on this point but no one makes that point more succinctly:

A man who does not know the truth is just an idiot but a man who knows the truth and calls it a lie is a crook!
—Bertolt Brecht

Iconoclasts are always misunderstood; truth telling has become un-patriotic. Were he alive and writing today, Mencken would be assailed for telling the truth. But Mencken had the verbal ammunition to take them on. As Mencken himself said, "One horse-laugh is worth ten-thousand syllogisms." Mencken would dispatch Bill Frist with a single phrase: "Puritanism —The haunting fear that someone, somewhere may be happy."

Which pretty much says it all, doesn't it?

Prejudice, the 82nd Airborne and Brokeback Mountain

Let's talk about homosexuality for a moment.

First, let's consider the Christian perspective. That's the excuse that a lot of people choose to structure their personal dislike of homosexuals around. "It's in the Bible! God hates fags!" Of course, there are a number of answers to that. The easiest is to find out if they ever eat pork or shellfish, or mix two different fabrics together. Those are also banned by the Bible, but very few people pay attention to those issues.

Secondly, let me give you two other Bible quotes. Matthew 7:1-3. “Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged; and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?”

That's the King James version. I may not be especially religious, but I've always preferred the poetry of that language.

Here's an even better verse, though. Mark 12:29-31. “The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love they neighbor as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.”

Seems pretty plain to me. (Even if King James thought "there is none other commandment" was proper sentence structure...) Like I said, I'm not all that religious. But if you're going to claim to be a Christian, shouldn't you pull the rules for your life from the New Testament instead of the old one? Otherwise, you should just convert to Judaism.

But the military has fallen fully in line with the bad Christians who make up the "Religious Right," and the ban on gays in the military is fully in effect. I actually had a briefing from the Legal Office a few years before I retired (shortly after Dubya was elected), where the military lawyer tried to explain that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Pursue" was not official military policy. But, you don't ask somebody what his sexual preference was, and if they don't tell you that they're gay, then you don't go after them to find out if they're gay.

I'm serious. He was doing his best Scotty McClellan, trying to tell us that, although "Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Pursue" was not policy, you still weren't allowed to ask or pursue, and the homosexuals who didn't tell would be just fine. Honest.

And what has this led to? What we have, just under a month ago, is seven members of the 82nd Airborne, one of the Army’s most elite units (no, really, “most elite” makes sense. It does. It just seems redundant because you don’t think like the military does. See, they took the phrase “elite unit,” and instead of it being descriptive – “elite” – of the group of people – “unit” – they drained all of the meaning out of it, so that “elite unit” is now a philosophical construction, and the best of the people in that group… oh, never mind. Just trust me, they understand it)…

Where was I again?

Oh, right. Anyway, what we have is seven members of the 82nd Airborne, a group of Special Forces paratroopers (I really want to go off on a tangent about “special education,” but I’m too easily distracted anyway) are getting kicked out of the military for making videos that were simultaneously both pornographic and homosexual.

Now, let’s be real for a second. If these guys can still fight and kill, what excuse is there for kicking them out of the Special Forces? After all, they proved that they can work as a team, right? But the military has this stupid prejudice against homosexuality, which probably stems from the fact that they’re pretty heavily repressed themselves.

I mean, look at them. Big leather boots, polished like mirrors... crisp, starched uniforms... berets perched on their closely-shaven skulls... working out all the time, so they’re obviously fixated on the male physique... Come on! It’s like they’re auditioning for the Village People twenty-four hours a day.

And because of this extreme self-loathing, the military has to kick out anyone who brings out a PING on their gaydar. Even if it means that they have to kick out every Arabic translator right before they invade an Arabic-speaking country, they aren’t going to let things like logic get in the way of their prejudice.

(In case you’re curious, they get around this little problem through the all-American habit of “out-sourcing.” When I was in Iraq, all of the translators I met, outside of a few locals hired as secretaries and the like, were contractors, hired at ten or twenty times the price of keeping the military translator and ignoring his sexual orientation. Makes sense, doesn’t it?)

But despite this hatred of all things gay, somewhere out there is a requisition form that might just include the line “Videotape, homosexual, one each.” Because… well, we’ll just let the news article speak for itself.

Military interrogators posing as FBI agents at the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, wrapped terrorism suspects in an Israeli flag and forced them to watch homosexual pornography under strobe lights during interrogation sessions that lasted as long as 18 hours, according to one of a batch of FBI memos released Thursday.

That’s right. They set up an S&M disco in Guantanamo. And think about it for a minute. Somebody had to actually audition the videos. Somewhere out there, some colonel had a big stack of movies, probably smoking a big cigar (because, after all, sometimes a cigar isn’t just a cigar…), saying things like “Nope. Not gay enough. Next!”

And he had to watch them all the way through, right? You’ve got to make sure that it’s gay from top to bottom (so to speak). You can’t let any straight sex scenes sneak in, can you? Wouldn’t that ruin the effect of the movie?

And those prejudices can pop up in a number of places. Here's a question for you. It almost seems like it isn't related, but if you think about it for a while, maybe you'll see that it is. Because Hollywood has taken a number of hits lately from the right wing about how liberal they are. So did they cave in to pressure?

If a man is given the Best Director award, wouldn't you think that the only movie that he directed that year, a product of his vision and a tribute to his directing talents, would be the best film that year? Especially if the script is the "Best Adapted Screenplay?" (Not to mention that it had the "Best Original Score"...) Doesn't that seem to follow? So, we have Ang Lee, the Best Director, using the Best Screenplay (that was taken from another source), and setting it against the Best Original Music out there. But despite that, his film Brokeback Mountain was not the Best Picture?

It's just a thought.

Pay too much and you could raise the alarm

OK, I usually post my own thoughts. But I want to do my part to make sure that this story doesn't just disappear from the Internet. It's from the Providence, Rhode Island Journal, and written on 28 February, 2006 by Bob Kerr for the Scripps Howard News Service.

Walter Soehnge is a retired Texas schoolteacher who traveled north with his wife, Deana, saw summer change to fall in Rhode Island and decided this was a place to stay for a while.

So the Soehnges live in Scituate now and Walter sometimes has breakfast at the Gentleman Farmer in Scituate Village, where he has passed the test and become a regular despite an accent that is definitely not local.

And it was there, at his usual table last week, that he told me that he was "madder than a panther with kerosene on his tail."

He says things like that. Texas does leave its mark on a man.

What got him so upset might seem trivial to some people who have learned to accept small infringements on their freedom as just part of the way things are in this age of terror-fed paranoia. It's that "everything changed after 9/11" thing.

But not Walter.

"We're a product of the '60s," he said. "We believe government should be way away from us in that regard."

He was referring to the recent decision by him and his wife to be responsible, to do the kind of thing that just about anyone would say makes good, solid financial sense.

They paid down some debt. The balance on their JCPenney Platinum MasterCard had gotten to an unhealthy level. So they sent in a large payment, a check for $6,522.

And an alarm went off. A red flag went up. The Soehnges' behavior was found questionable.

And all they did was pay down their debt. They didn't call a suspected terrorist on their cell phone. They didn't try to sneak a machine gun through customs.

They just paid a hefty chunk of their credit card balance. And they learned how frighteningly wide the net of suspicion has been cast.

After sending in the check, they checked online to see if their account had been duly credited. They learned that the check had arrived, but the amount available for credit on their account hadn't changed.

So Deana Soehnge called the credit-card company. Then Walter called.

"When you mess with my money, I want to know why," he said.

They both learned the same astounding piece of information about the little things that can set the threat sensors to beeping and blinking.

They were told, as they moved up the managerial ladder at the call center, that the amount they had sent in was much larger than their normal monthly payment. And if the increase hits a certain percentage higher than that normal payment, Homeland Security has to be notified. And the money doesn't move until the threat alert is lifted.

Walter called television stations, the American Civil Liberties Union and me. And he went on the Internet to see what he could learn. He learned about changes in something called the Bank Privacy Act.

"The more I'm on, the scarier it gets," he said. "It's scary how easily someone in Homeland Security can get permission to spy."

Eventually, his and his wife's money was freed up. The Soehnges were apparently found not to be promoting global terrorism under the guise of paying a credit-card bill. They never did learn how a large credit card payment can pose a security threat.

But the experience has been a reminder that a small piece of privacy has been surrendered. Walter Soehnge, who says he holds solid, middle-of-the-road American beliefs, worries about rights being lost.

"If it can happen to me, it can happen to others," he said.

Welcome to America in the 21st century. George Orwell was just 20 years early.

Down to the Sea in Ships

I wasn't going to talk about the Dubai port deal. I mean, hell, it's the story of the day. Everybody's chiming in on it, and I hate being accused of jumping on a bandwagon. But there's just so much material here - come on, even the Department of Homeland Security objected to this backdoor deal.

And, by the way, it's not just six ports any more. It's twenty-one. I'm starting to wonder if we'll have any American-controlled ports left after this settles down.

But let's be clear on one thing. Scott McClellan (who has got to have problems sleeping at night, considering the amount of open, obvious lying he's been doing in this job) said "This not about control of our ports, this is not about the security of our ports. And let me be very clear, one thing we will never do is outsource to anyone the control and security of our ports, whether that's Dubai or any other entity that operates terminals at our ports."

Well, let's turn that answer over to CNN correspondent Bill Tucker.

In simple terms, at most ports security works like this: while the ship is in the water, it's under the jurisdiction of the Coast Guard. While docked at the port and those goods are being unloaded, it's under the jurisdiction of Customs and Border Protection. But the minute those goods come off of the ships and land on the dock, security is the sole responsibility of the terminal operator.

The security plans are reviewed by the Department of Homeland Security, but the terminal operator is solely responsible for the execution of those plans. The plans are classified secret. If a foreign government gains control of the terminal it becomes privy to the classified security arrangements.

It's strange, really, that Bush has been consistently bringing up 9/11 as justification for invading Iraq, but now he's willfully ignoring the fact that, unlike Iraq, the United Arab Emirates had extremely strong connections to the 9/11 hijackers.

But guess who did the investigation on Dubai? John Negroponte, who used to cover up the murder and torture of South American dictators. At least we know that investigation was thorough, right?

So, why is Bush so adamant about trying to get this deal through? Could it be the money? After all, Dubai gave one hundred million dollars in Katrina relief, nearly four times as much as all the other countries who donated, combined.

Or is the money a little closer to home? After all, the UAE gave one million dollars to the Bush Library. (Which won't be more than a closet, anyway. How much room does two copies of My Pet Goat need, anyway?) As CNN correspondent Christine Romans reported on Lou Dobbs' show, the Carlyle Group, where Bush Sr. worked as a senior advisor, got $8 billion in Dubai money just last year, and Neil Bush (the unknown Bush Brother) received funding for his educational software company from UAE investors. Two of Bush's aides have business ties to the very same, UAE government-controlled company that is now trying to buy our ports.

But the Bush family has never had a problem working with dictators if there was a little money in it for them, have they? His grandfather worked with Hitler, his father worked with the UAE in the Carlyle Group, and here's our President, selling out to the people who financed 9/11.

Kinda makes you feel warm all over, doesn't it?

It's All About The Lies

Why is the fact that Dick Cheney shot a man in the face important? What is it about that act that makes it the perfect touchstone for the problems of the Bush Administration?

Is it because our boy Dick shot a man in the face? Is that all it is? Simple schadenfreude? Well, yes and no. It's nice when someone so blatantly unlikable, so wildly unconcerned about his fellow men, has a bad day. That's a simple fact about the human psyche - if you don't like someone, you don't want him to succeed. But that's not the most important factor here.

And, incidentally, nobody really wants Whittington to die. But consider the ramifications for old Dead-Eye Dick if one of those pellets that he pumped into that 78-year-old lawyer causes an embolism, or migrates into his heart. Dick has already openly and publicly done something unique in the Bush White House: he accepted blame for his actions. So what happens if it turns out that Dick committed "negligent homicide"? Does he go to jail like an ordinary citizen?

Probably not. But now we've touched on part of the problem. Cheney refused to go to the hospital, and was able to avoid law enforcement officials for an entire day. So is it any wonder that people ask if alcohol was involved in the shooting? He violated the most basic rule of firearms and a man went to the hospital because of it. At the very least, anyone else would have been forced to take a Breathalyzer test. But if you think that our vice president is going to be humiliated like that, then you don't know Dick.

There is no accountability in any of this Administration's dealings with the public. How can you tell when the White House is lying? When they make an official statement on any subject. They took us to war against Iraq based on lies.

They keep bringing up the specter of terrorism to keep the American people fearful, but a look around will show that they aren't really doing more than spying on Americans and slapping a new coat of paint on the old, ineffective programs. They haven't guarded any of the various chemical plants around the country, and the ports are not only unprotected but one of the country's largest was recently sold to the United Arab Emirates.

They claim to support the troops, but, not only does Bush not bother to send in enough troops or give them adequate equipment, but he is trying to give them the lowest pay raise in decades - a pay raise that not only lags significantly behind inflation, but is also the lowest raise offered to people putting their lives on the line since 1988. (It's equal to the pay raise given the troops in 1994 - when none of them were being actively attacked - but you have to go back to Reagan and George Bush v. 1.0 to go any lower. For obvious reasons, the Military Officer's Association tracks that kind of thing, and they show how badly the military lags behind the civilian populace in pay parity.)

And the actions of the Bush Administration aren't just angering progressives and liberals. George Will is an old-school conservative (something becoming rare in the Republican Party these days), and he has started pointing out the flaws in everything from taking us to war based on a lie, and then illegally spying on American citizens.

And in the latest news, despite official statements that American troops will be withdrawn from Iraq as soon as the Iraqi military can fend for themselves, it's becoming apparent that the US military has no intention of departing Iraq any time soon, since we're sinking billions of dollars into Iraqi superbases.

Which brings us back to why Dick Cheney's hunting accident is such a big deal. Because it shows just how the White House deals with the public. And it's something that the average man can understand. God bless Dick Cheney and his itchy trigger finger.

And by the way, if American officials are going to buy a hunting shotgun, wouldn't it be nice if they bought American? TheSmokingGun.com has gotten their hands on the report filed by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, which shows that Cheney was using an Italian-made Perazzi shotgun. (Hmm... where have I heard about that brand of shotgun before?)

Shh! Be vewwy vewwy quiet! We're hunting honkies!

While hunting for quail in Texas on Saturday, the Vice President of the United States shot a 78-year-old millionaire lawyer named Harry Whittington. (You know, there might be a joke I could make about "Dick Whittington," but I guess it wouldn't really be funny.)

And today, there are more variations of the sentence "I shot a man in Reno, just to watch him die" floating around the Internet than there has been during any Administration in the history of the United States, to include the presidencies of Washington, Lincoln, Wilson or Roosevelt.

It's relatively certain that the shooting was an accident, since rich white guys are the group normally referred to by the Administration as "our base."

Katharine Armstrong, the ranch's owner, saw what happened Saturday and told reporters yesterday that Cheney was using a 28-gauge shotgun, which shoots fewer pellets and has a smaller shot pattern than a 12-gauge shotgun, making it harder to hit the target. Whittington was about 30 yards away when he was hit in the cheek, neck and chest, she said...

It was Armstrong's decision to alert the news media. Cheney's office made no public announcement, deciding to defer to Armstrong because the incident had taken place on her property. Armstrong called the Corpus Christi Caller-Times, and when a reporter from the paper called the White House, the vice president's office confirmed the account.

Yes, true to their policy of never informing anyone about anything, the White House wasn’t going to break this story. Katherine Armstrong got nervous about that whole "criminal charges" thing, and contacted the Corpus Christi Caller-Times (free registration required).

According to her account, the Vice President was about 30 yards away from Whittington, and both were wearing orange vests. The Vice President was said to have a valid hunting license, but a spokesman for the Texas Game & Fish Commission stated that lawyer season wasn't due to start for another three weeks.

First of all, one of the primary rules of using a firearm of any kind is to know your backstop: if you're going to shoot in any direction, you damned well better know what is past the thing you're aiming at, because bullets don't just fly up to the target and then quit moving – they keep going for miles, sometimes.

Secondly, how can the White House not think that this was important enough to pass along to the press? When was the last time that a sitting vice president actively shot another person? I'm thinking that we need to go back to Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr for that. Maybe, just maybe, if you dig a little, you'll find some historical significance in this.

But in actual fact, the rumor is that Cheney was heard stating that Mr. Whittington was known to have reconstituted his nuclear weapons program, and the people of Corpus Christi would greet him with open arms as a liberator.

Happy Valentine's Day. Leave the check on the bureau.

It's sad, in a world where there should be equality between the sexes by now, that men are often required to initiate courtship or romance. It's especially unfortunate, because most often, when women initiate either one, it works. However, from a simple cost-analysis perspective, it makes sense for the men to have to do the work, because, as Gary Busey's character pointed out in DC Cab, women "have half the money and all the pussy." So, with the fairer sex holding all the cards, it makes sense, from their perspective, that the men should be carrying the load in this endeavor.

However, continuing in that cost-effective vein, it seems that if the man wants to win her heart, he doesn't need expensive presents or jewelry. All he needs is a restaurant reservation.

Men who want to impress a woman will do best to wine and dine her. In this instance, we aren't taking our advice from any of the usual sources - not marriage counselors, not advice columnists, and especially not women (hey, what would they gain from giving us a straight answer in this case?) Instead, in this instance, we turn to words of wisdom from mathematicians.

A team of mathematicians from Imperial College London developed a mathematical formula to determine the best way to woo a woman. They did this by modeling courtship as a sequential game, according to Reuters.

The results:Women aren't impressed by cheap gifts. Don't waste your money.
Expensive gifts can definitely show a woman that the man has serious intentions, but if the woman is uninterested (or simply mercenary), it could backfire, and the man would end up with no woman and less cash.

So what's the best answer? A dinner at a fancy restaurant or an evening at the theater are considered expensive, but worthless gifts ("worthless" because they don't have intrinsic value, the way jewelry or a car do). Why is a worthless gift so effective? If the woman is not interested and doesn't accept the invitation, there is no cost to the man. And if she's already accepted the date, he knows she's interested in him, and is halfway home already.

Unfortunately, the date can't be inexpensive. A cheap meal and a video won't impress anybody. "Our analysis shows there is evolutionary logic in men 'burning money' to impress the girl," study co-author Robert Seymour told Reuters.

So, what do we learn here? Dinner works better than diamonds, but there had better be wine, candlelight, and incredible food. (The study findings were published in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society of London.)

Of course, love and romance are murky subjects at best, and no one study is likely to get it right. Somewhere out there, there might just be a winning formula for romance. In the meantime, send her a card, you cheap bastard. And reflect on the fact that while Valentine's Day is a cash cow for florists, candy makers and Hallmark, it's also a big day for private detectives.

An Award For The Lynch Mob

Let's consider the continued separation of reality from myth in the Iraqi conflict.

The Associated Press has a story out on the wires talking about the 1st Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment, which was given the Valorous Unit award last Friday (January 27).

Reading through the story, you get the impression that the Rangers got the award for the rescue of Jessica Lynch - they were one of the units that participated in that operation, after all, and most of the story talks about that particular event. But they never really say that, and the unit has deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan seven times since September 2002.

But, in fact, if you try and research the story, some versions come right out and say it: "Army Unit Honored For Rescue of Lynch." Which is entirely the wrong reason to give anyone an award.

The story of Jessica Lynch is a heart-rending story of a real American hero persevering in the face of danger. When the convoy she was riding with took a wrong turn and was ambushed by Iraqi soldiers, they fought back with everything they had. Surrounded by the corpses of fallen comrades, Jessica fought to the last, until finally, brutally stabbed and her body riddled with bullet wounds, she fell to the ground unconscious, both her legs broken by gunfire.

The Iraqi's held her in a hospital under guard, but a heroic Iraqi lawyer, visiting his wife in the hospital, saw her there being interrogated. He risked his life to alert the US military where she was being held, and in a stunning late-night raid, US forces entered the hospital under heavy fire and snatched the abused young woman from the clutches of her torturers.

They flew her to the US Army medical facility in Ramstein Air Base, Germany suffering from gunshot wounds and broken bones, and she was later awarded a Bronze Star for her heroism under fire. Mohammed Odeh al-Rehaief, the lawyer who found her, was flown out of the country with his entire family, to prevent reprisals by the Iraqi government.

That's how it was reported. That's what her family was told. Unfortunately, it's a lie.

The convoy might have been ambushed: a lot of convoys were, both before and since. But Private Lynch was injured when her vehicle crashed, and her gun jammed before she could fire. The Iraqis took her to a hospital in Nassiriya, where she was given the only "specialist bed" in the hospital. Both the Iraqi doctors (and the American doctors in Germany) found no gunshot wounds, no stab wounds, just the standard injuries you'd expect for the victim of an auto accident. They gave her three liters of blood - because of shortages, two of those bottles had to be drawn directly from the arms of Iraqi hospital personnel.

When the commando raid rescued her, the Iraqi military had been gone for at least a day. There may have been scattered gunfire from insurgents outside, but there was no resistance inside the hospital. From a Guardian article about the incident:

"We heard the noise of helicopters," says Dr Anmar Uday. He says that they must have known there would be no resistance. "We were surprised. Why do this? There was no military, there were no soldiers in the hospital.

"It was like a Hollywood film. They cried, 'Go, go, go', with guns and blanks and the sound of explosions. They made a show - an action movie like Sylvester Stallone or Jackie Chan, with jumping and shouting, breaking down doors." All the time with the camera rolling. The Americans took no chances, restraining doctors and a patient who was handcuffed to a bed frame.

There was one more twist. Two days before the snatch squad arrived, Al-Houssona had arranged to deliver Jessica to the Americans in an ambulance. "I told her I will try and help you escape to the American Army but I will do this very secretly because I could lose my life." He put her in an ambulance and instructed the driver to go to the American checkpoint. When he was approaching it, the Americans opened fire. They fled just in time back to the hospital. The Americans had almost killed their prize catch.

Private Lynch herself has criticized the military accounts of her rescue, saying that they exaggerated events and recast her ordeal as a patriotic fable.

Through all of this, the Iraqi lawyer came out of it the best, being flown out of a third-world country at war, his entire family taken to New York, asylum granted by the US government, and a $500,000 book deal (Because Each Life is Precious, HarperCollins, 2003).

But the US government was desperate for a hero who they could parade in front of the American people. So Jessica Lynch was awarded a Bronze Star by the US Army, for being in a car wreck and getting adequate care at an Iraqi hospital.

That's what we call "the power of myth."

Heckling the State of the Union

This post might be a little longer than most. Bush gave his "State of the Union" address last night. It might have been easier to watch if I'd been drinking. Or if he had.

You know, the "State of the Union" address is actually a requirement from the Constitution. To be exact, Article II, section 3: "The President shall from time to time give to Congress information of the State of the Union and recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient."

That's it. That's the requirement. "From time to time." And here, by the way, is where I'm supposed to say something snarky like, "Well, gee. We've found a part of the Constitution that Bush isn't willing to despoil. Yet."

On the other hand, I could just say nasty things about his speech. That might be fun. So let's see what we've got here. He starts by talking about Coretta Scott King, who died yesterday. Nice touch. So he covered that. Let's move along.

In a system of two parties, two chambers, and two elected branches, there will always be differences and debate.

Yeah. It wouldn't be nearly as humorous for him to say that, if it wasn't the same day that Samuel Alito was confirmed to the Supreme Court. Meaning that ONE party now controls all three branches of the government.

Not that I'm bitter...

But even tough debates can be conducted in a civil tone, and our differences cannot be allowed to harden into anger.

Is it my imagination, or is this statement coming from the single most partisan president in the history of the United States?

Tonight the state of our Union is strong

Well, yeah. Sadly, it's strongly opposed to you. But let's not get into that...

The only way to protect our people, the only way to secure the peace, the only way to control our destiny is by our leadership -- so the United States of America will continue to lead.

Where are we going, and what are we doing in this handbasket?

On September the 11th, 2001, we found that problems originating in a failed and oppressive state 7,000 miles away could bring murder and destruction to our country.

Whoa. Not even a minute into it, and he's already brought up 9/11, and used it to justify attacking Iraq. Gotta say, I'm impressed.

In 1945, there were about two dozen lonely democracies in the world. Today, there are 122. And we're writing a new chapter in the story of self-government -- with women lining up to vote in Afghanistan, and millions of Iraqis marking their liberty with purple ink...

Yup. Awesome job. The Palestinians just voted for Hamas, a known terrorist organization, the Iraqi's voted for closer ties with Iran (the second leg of the "Axis of Evil")... oh, let's just stop it there. The Middle East is a powder keg. 'Nuff said, right?

Well, you'd think. But Bush doesn't shut up about it for another couple of minutes.

We remain on the offensive against terror networks. We have killed or captured many of their leaders...

That's true. We've captured the Number Three man in al Qaeda about seventy-two times, haven’t we?

The road of victory is the road that will take our troops home. As we make progress on the ground, and Iraqi forces increasingly take the lead, we should be able to further decrease our troop levels -- but those decisions will be made by our military commanders, not by politicians in Washington, D.C.

See, it's simple. We'll pull out of Iraq, just like the Democrats want. But we'll do it slowly and carefully, just like the Democrats want... No, wait, that's not it...

In the coming year, I will continue to reach out and seek your good advice.

He probably won't listen, but at least he's seeking it, right?

Hindsight alone is not wisdom, and second-guessing is not a strategy.

Translation: ignore what I've done before now, and pretend that I know what I'm doing.

With so much in the balance, those of us in public office have a duty to speak with candor.

As long as what you say agrees with what I want. Otherwise, you're "aiding the terrorists."

A sudden withdrawal of our forces from Iraq would abandon our Iraqi allies to death and prison...

As opposed to all those other Iraqi's we've abandoned to death and prison...

...would put men like bin Laden and Zarqawi in charge of a strategic country...

Wait a minute. Are those two even in Iraq? Yeah, I didn't think so. And just how strategic is Iraq, anyway?

Our men and women in uniform are making sacrifices...

Hang on. You're talking about the people who actually joined the military, right? Not the ones who used the National Guard to avoid combat, right? And maybe didn’t even show up when they were supposed to. Of course, that was back when the National Guard wasn't sent overseas to Iraq, too.

They know what it's like... to wear heavy gear in the desert heat...

Well, some of them do. The ones who actually have armor.

So the United States of America supports democratic reform across the broader Middle East.

Until they elect Hamas, anyway.

The same is true of Iran, a nation now held hostage by a small clerical elite that is isolating and repressing its people.

What? They've got Focus on the Family there, too?

The Iranian government is defying the world with its nuclear ambitions, and the nations of the world must not permit the Iranian regime to gain nuclear weapons.

Oh, gawd. Please don't say "weapons of mass destruction." Please don't say "weapons of mass destruction." Please don't say "weapons of mass destruction."...

We show compassion abroad because Americans believe in the God-given dignity and worth of a villager with HIV/AIDS...

Which he probably caught because we refuse to send condoms to Africa. But that's OK. It's God's will, right?

But enough about those foreigners. Let's talk about how we can strip more civil rights from Americans, OK?

It is said that prior to the attacks of September the 11th, our government failed to connect the dots of the conspiracy.

That's correct. Like on August 6, 2001, when our government failed to connect with a Presidential Daily Briefing entitled "Bin Laden Determined To Strike In US."

...I have authorized a terrorist surveillance program to aggressively pursue the international communications of suspected al Qaeda operatives and affiliates to and from America.

See, we're calling it "terrorist surveillance" now. That whole "domestic spying" thing didn't go over too well.

This is getting boring. He's gonna try to justify spying on Americans for a while. Let's skip a little.

American leaders -- from Roosevelt to Truman to Kennedy to Reagan...

Huh, three Democrats and a Republican. Oh, wait. He probably meant Teddy Roosevelt, didn't he?

Together, let us protect our country, support the men and women who defend us, and lead this world toward freedom.

Yup. Protect their Constitutional rights, give proper armor to troops who are getting shot at, and... hmmm... don't know what Bush considers "freedom" anymore.

We will build the prosperity of our country by strengthening our economic leadership in the world.

I think he means that "outsourcing jobs to other countries is good," but I'm not clear on this one.

We hear claims that immigrants are somehow bad for the economy -- even though this economy could not function without them.

You're right. Somebody's got to pick the lettuce.

Keeping America competitive begins with keeping our economy growing.

Pay no attention to the automakers behind the curtain. And pay no attention to me while I try to justify tax cuts despite the billions (or even trillions) of dollars being spent in Iraq.

The retirement of the baby boom generation will put unprecedented strains on the federal government. By 2030, spending for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid alone will be almost 60 percent of the entire federal budget.

Oh, he is NOT going to try and justify privatizing Social Security again, is he?

Congress did not act last year on my proposal to save Social Security (applause)

OK, hear that, George? They applauded the death of your stupid program. Get a clue here, will you?

Keeping America competitive requires affordable health care...

Hang on. He just said WHAT?

And because lawsuits are driving many good doctors out of practice -- leaving women in nearly 1,500 American counties without a single OB/GYN...

You're right. Who was it that said, "Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country"? I know I've heard that somewhere...

America is addicted to oil...

Now is where we start giggling like schoolgirls, since most of the Bush administration gets their money from Big Oil. Hell, Bush had Harken Oil, Condi Rice had an oil tanker named after her, and let's just ignore that whole Cheney energy task force thing. So, if oil is an addiction, what does that make YOU, Mr. President? A pusher?

...many Americans... still have deep concerns about the direction of our ... They're concerned about unethical conduct by public officials, and discouraged by activist courts that try to redefine marriage.

Whoa. I'm sorry. I nodded off. Did he just talk about DeLay, Abramoff and gay marriage in the same sentence? What'd I miss?

Maybe they're going to share a cell. That would be cool.

As we look at these challenges, we must never give in to the belief that America is in decline, or that our culture is doomed to unravel. The American people know better than that. We have proven the pessimists wrong before -- and we will do it again.

Yup. Hopefully in November of this year, and again in November, 2008. Assuming that we can't impeach your sorry ass before that.

Honorable people in both parties are working on reforms to strengthen the ethical standards of Washington...

Well, yes and no. "Honorable people" are indeed working on Congressional ethics. Sadly, none of them are Republicans....

OK, I'll admit it. Bush surprised me at this point. First he promised more money to rebuild New Orleans, and then he said this:

A hopeful society acts boldly to fight diseases like HIV/AIDS, which can be prevented, and treated, and defeated.

I'm going to assume he means "homosexuality can be wiped out in our lifetime," though, because a George Bush who worries about HIV makes my head hurt.

Yet the destination of history is determined by human action, and every great movement of history comes to a point of choosing.

Yup. Like Cindy Sheehan getting moved out the back door in handcuffs, because you didn't approve of her T-shirt. That's a fine choice, Mr. President.

Lincoln could have accepted peace at the cost of disunity and continued slavery. Martin Luther King could have stopped at Birmingham or at Selma, and achieved only half a victory over segregation.

Holy crap. You did NOT just compare yourself to Lincoln and King, did you?

You gotta admit, he's got cojones.

The United States could have accepted the permanent division of Europe, and been complicit in the oppression of others.

And if you’re trying to compare the conflict in Iraq to World War II, you’ve already lost. The only way the two would compare would be if the Japanese had attacked Pearl Harbor, and in response, American forces invaded Brazil.

May God bless America.

And may God save us from you and your cronies.