The True Face of Abortion Opponents

Sometimes, I gotta concentrate on work a little more than others. So, rather than doing something original, let me just point you toward another blog that goes by the name of Needlenose:

It will be most interesting to hear the reaction of anti-abortion groups to the FDA's decision yesterday to allow Plan-B "morning after" pills to be sold over the counter (limited to those over-18). The most often cited reason for these groups opposing anything related to abortion (clinics, pills, etc.) is that they are doing it to protect the life of a helpless child. But Plan-B contains doses of the hormone Progestin which prevents the release or fertilization of an egg. In other words it keeps a woman's reproductive system out of the reproductive lottery. Thanks to Science the whole raison d'etre of abortion groups is rendered moot.

No released eggs means no fertilization, no fetus, nothing. So this leaves these groups with three options:

1. Concede that science may have finally found a way to eliminate abortions, pack up their bags and go home.
2. Stick their fingers in their ears and go la la la la...
3. Admit that their objection isn't really to abortion, but to contraception -- or better yet, to people having sex.

Some of them are making a valiant attempt at a fourth option: to change the definition of an 'embryo' (i.e. what they're trying to protect) from a fertilized egg implanted in a woman's womb and undergoing cell division to a plain old fertilized egg, just floating around. The idea is that anything that gets in the way of this whole sperm + egg -> fertilization -> implantation -> cell-division process is tantamount to abortion and therefore qualifies as an object of their ire. But it's a real grasping at straws based on a single sentence in the manufacturer's fine print. Besides the FDA's decision to allow over-the-counter sales has let the cat out of the bag. Now they have to take a position that is consistent with the fact that abortion clinics may very well stop performing abortions altogether because nobody needs them any more.

That takes us back to the three options. I'm not holding my breath for #1 to happen any time soon and they can get away with #2 for only so long before they run out of air. Sooner or later they'll have to admit #3 -- that at the root of their objection is that they just hate it for unmarried people to have sex, that their blood starts boiling whenever they picture their daughter getting jiggy with the neighbor's son -- even if both of them are over eighteen.

That, of course, puts them on the same wavelength as the Taliban and the rest of the Sharia-loving crowd -- and if there's one thing that makes these people angrier than women exercising control over their own bodies, it's being compared to a bunch of Muslims.

So thanks Dr. Science, for driving a nice little wedge between these people and their nasty little judgemental causes and ripping away their thinly-veiled morality facade (oops, did I say veiled?)

I don't like abortions either. Nobody does. I wish they could be avoided altogether -- and it looks like they very well may be.

And the Racism Continues...

Let's revisit racism. Yeah, it seems like just last month, I was babbling about our friends with ethnicity issues. (OK, it was just three weeks ago... and... uh... three weeks before that... man, I do go on sometimes, don't I?) But let's see what else has crawled out from under the rock since then.

Our boy Senator George Allen (R-VA) got in a little trouble a while back for displaying a noose in his office and a Confederate flag at home. Well, this time, he was caught on tape referring to S.R. Sidarth, a young man of Indian descent, as "Macaca." He clearly said the word twice, so at least nobody has tried to claim he was misunderstood. Well, nobody but Allen.

His exact words were:

"This fellow here, over here with the yellow shirt, Macaca, or whatever his name is. He's with my opponent. He's following us around everywhere. And it's just great... Let's give a welcome to Macaca, here. Welcome to America and the real world of Virginia."

Allen's first answer, when asked about his use of the word "macaca," was the basic defensive response: "I don't know what it means." Then he tried to claim that it was a reference to the man's hair, as in "Mohawk" - oddly enough, a cut that is only barely related to the mullet sported by our cameraman, in that they both involve hair.

Now, blogger Jeffrey Feldman did a little research, and discovered that the word was used by white supremacists to refer to black men (mostly when "nigger" seems redundant, apparently). His links are a little hard to follow: in the face of the controversy, Stormfront seems to have scrubbed their pages, and I somehow didn't feel like logging in to Vanguard News Network.

Mr Feldman also wasn't as careful as he could have been: he was referring to one post in a thread, but gave the link for the mother post it was responding to.

But the word is out there, and it doesn't mean "I respect you and don't object to your skin tone."

Since Mr. Sidarth was born and raised in Fairfax County, Virginia, it seems a little unreasonable of Allen to have welcomed him to either America or Virginia. Perhaps having realized that, Allen met with a number of Indian-American leaders to apologize for being an ass. They weren't impressed. "We expect better from our leaders... We're working toward getting satisfied; it is a work in progress."

Racism seems to be rearing its ugly head everywhere lately. The President dismisses every Muslim in the world as an "islamofascist," and Michelle Malkin, the Queen Bee of pop-culture bigotry, chimes in with a theory that all Muslims are the same and the race war is on.

Where does it lead? Well, in Maryland, we get bigots standing outside the home of Saqib Ali, a candidate for the Maryland House of Delegates, wearing a T-shirt reading "this mind is an Allah-free zone" and holding up a hand-lettered "Islam sucks" sign. That's always a good way to spend your day, right?

In the UK, two Muslim men were forced off of a flight for “acting suspiciously” and “speaking Arabic.” That's all they did. They talked quietly to each other, possibly in Arabic (the news stories haven't established what language they were speaking), and they didn't proceed directly to their seat. So they were obviously terrorists, right?

A British man named Azar Iqbal, travelling to Disneyland with his wife and three children, was detained at the Atlanta airport, questioned about whether he knew anything about a terror plot, told that "we didn't ask you to come to America," and denied entry into the United States. Because, after all, nobody of Middle Eastern descent would take their children to "the Happiest Place on Earth," would they? Everybody knows that Arabs don't love their children. Even if they're British citizens.

Here's the way it works. If it's OK to discriminate against one type of people based on their race or religion, then suddenly, it can become easier to discriminate against another race. So, what are we going to see next?

How about major movie stars getting in touch with their inner anti-Semite? (OK, let's get real, folks. Alcohol lowers inhibitions, it doesn't create new thought patterns. A drunk might blurt out things already in his mind, but he isn't likely to spontaneously create a new, original line of thought.)

How about Republican Congressional candidate's talking about how "blacks aren't the best swimmers or may not even know how to swim," or White House press secretaries using the term "tar baby" in a press conference?

Or you can do a Google news search on "Klan," and discover that they seem to be resurfacing, with rallies in Texas and Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. And showing up at a Harper's Ferry discussion of race relations. And even trying to gain a little press by adopting a Missouri highway. (You can even buy Klan and Nazi memorabilia at county fairs in Pennsylvania these days. Go figure.)

Keep an eye on this kind of thing. I think we'll be seeing more of it in the near future.

But one more thing about our friend George Felix Allen. Sidarth had introduced himself to Allen earlier in the week. Now, Allen had heard Sidarth's name and felt that it was appropriate to make fun of it, this could show that he doesn't respect people and their cultures. Or perhaps he just likes to give people of other races nonsense names (I wonder if he likes to call all Asians "Ching Chong" or all Middle Easterners "Abdul") - that's one of the marks of a racist.

Either way, it isn't something I'd want coming out of my Senator's mouth. Maybe it's a good thing I don't live in Virginia.

The Shadow Republican

Let's talk about Joe Lieberman. (Hell, everybody else is doing it. Why shouldn't I?)

Let’s be clear on what we have here. Joe Lieberman, a man who once said, while talking about the 2004 elections, "Senator Kerry got a lot of votes, 56 million votes, more than any Democratic candidate for president in history, but there's no prizes for second place in American politics."

Suddenly, because he doesn’t like how things turned out, that idea is out the window. Where he once wanted people to accept the results of an election, now he wants to ignore it completely. He wants to be handed the prize for coming in second.

Well, I’m sorry, Joe, but look at the bigger picture. The polling group Zogby International asked around, and discovered that almost four out of five Democrats are happy to see you go. I'm sorry if you don't like those numbers, Joe, but that's reality.

It's fascinating that most of Lieberman's support right now is coming, not from Democrats, but from Republicans. People like Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman, White House press secretary Tony Snow and Vice President Dick Cheney are all making statements about Lieberman's defeat being a great national tragedy. In fact, Karl Rove apparently called Joe to say "The boss wants to help. Whatever we can do, we will do."

Or, to be fair, maybe he didn't say it. The White House denied it almost immediately, so there's really no proof either way. (On the third hand, there's an old joke: "How can you tell when insert politician here is lying? His lips are moving.")

(I'm going to indulge in a little speculation at this point, though. Consider the GOP's love of Lieberman. And then consider that we now have evidence that the White House was pressuring the British to arrest their liquid-explosive-laden terror suspects right away. Is it beyond belief that the Administration wanted the arrests to occur before the Connecticut primary? And in resisting the pressure, the British police actually threw off Karl Rove's timetable, and the arrests happened a few too days late to help out their boy Joe? Like I said, speculation. But not hard to believe, when you think about this White House's record.)

You know who's getting ignored in all this? A guy named Alan Schlesinger. He's the actual Republican running against Ned Lamont in Connecticut. A man who's pretty much ignored by his party right about now. It must suck to be him, huh?

So why would the Republicans want to support a Democratic... oh, sorry, an Independent candidate? Well, that one's easy. First, they see him as a Democrat who supports Republican ideals. (An attitude that begs the question, "What do you call someone who firmly supports the major points of the Republican party?" Answer - a Republican.)

Secondly, they see the possibility of Lieberman acting as a spoiler in the Connecticut Senate race. Every vote for Lieberman is a vote that didn't go to Lamont. And that thought must make Karl Rove wet himself with pleasure every time he thinks about it.

But why would Lieberman want to do that? Could it be that he's just following the orders given to him by the White House? Or is it something a little more basic?

I like the theory that it's simple human nature on Lieberman's part. He likes to claim that he's one of the "common people," but he's more of a child of privilege. He was born in Stamford, Connecticut, which isn't exactly Compton or South Philly. And he went to Yale, not the local community college.

Every time anybody mentions Ned Lamont, they like to add the adjective "millionaire" in front of his name, in the same place that the word "Senator" gets place in front of Lieberman. But that ignores the fact that Joe Lieberman, in his 2003 financial disclosure form, showed that he had a net worth of somewhere between $482,000 to $1.8 million. The man isn't exactly worrying about whether he can make the rent this month.

That's how I see it. Joe Lieberman thinks that he deserves to be a Senator. It's his right. He feels that he was elected three times, so he's entitled to the job now. He earned it. This attitude, of course, ignores the fact that he wasn't elected this time, but Joe isn't paying attention to that little fact now. He's like a sulky two-year-old - if reality doesn't fit with what he wants, that reality must be wrong.

That's a strangely Republican viewpoint, really. Does anybody recall Ron Suskind's little tale about his meeting with a senior Bush advisor?

The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community... That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities"

So take it as you will. Some people prefer the idea that Joe is a puppet, acting out the bidding of his Republican masters. I prefer the idea that Joe is an elitist, unwilling to admit that he doesn't deserve to be in the job, even though the Democrats of Connecticut voted to replace him. Because obviously, the Connecticut Democrats aren't smartest voters in the world, or they wouldn't have voted to have him removed.

Or as Stephen Colbert put it, "Ned Lamont may have won the primary but his supporters are not mainstream Democrats. They’re against the Iraq war. A position so extreme that only 86% of Democrats agree with him" (It's possible that statistic is correct. It's possible that Stephen made it up. But it feels right, doesn't it?)

It's time for Joe to admit the truth, though. He needs to just take his ball and go home.

Well, I guess it's a good sign...

You know, it's odd. When you're clicking around randomly on YouTube, you might come across Al Gore's Penguin Army, which includes the tagline "What is Al Gore's new movie, An Inconvenient Truth, all about? Global Warming? The Environment? Or something much more BORING? See Al Gore's Penguin Army learn how crazy this flick really is..." It even has a link to a MySpace page (which, as it turns out, is pretty much just a placeholder for the movie).

And if you're really bored, you might make the mistake of watching the thing. And that's when you realize that this video is evidence of why some people are neither professional comedy writers or animators. It's boring. The animation is crap.
It has one joke (which isn't even funny - the penguins fall asleep because Al Gore is boring), and it goes on for WAY too long. (OK, it's only two minutes and change. But it seems like a lot longer, somehow...)

But, hey, somebody went to the trouble of making it and posting it, which is more than you've done, right? Well, that's where it gets a little tricky. Because, as it turns out, this little piece was produced by a company called DCI, a public relations firm working for Exxon-Mobil.

And strangely enough, would you like to guess which left-wing rag uncovered this? Mother Jones magazine? Nature? Again, that's where it get's tricky. Because the member of the Giant Liberal Conspiracy who found this out turns out to be the Wall Street Journal, which has long been an arm of the Democratic party, right?

So that leaves us with only two questions. First, isn't Big Oil supposed to be some kind of supervillian bent on world domination? Then why are they acting like high school kids?

And second, with trillions of dollars at their disposal, this is the best they can come up with? Something that even Conan O'Brien wouldn't think was funny? Yes, bad animation can be forgiven in an amateur video. But for maximum effect, there should be some humor involved. After all, the purpose of the video is that people should want to see it. And should want to show it to their friends. And maybe, should absorb, at least subconsciously, part of the message.

But if the video is stupid, it's got limited replay value, which destroys the entire purpose.

Suddenly, I'm feeling a lot better about the future of the environment, if these guys are the ones trying to destroy it.

I'm also wondering if Linux is going to sue, since the PR firm stole their penguins.

Racism in America

Quick disclaimer. I'm white.

I'm sorry. I can't help it. It's just the way I was born. And some people might think that this pigmentation deficiency of mine might make me unfit to comment on racism. But you know what? I don't care. I'm going to do that anyway...

You know, it's odd. I see things like (a few months ago) the controversy over a Spanish version of "the Star Spangled Banner," and I think "racism." After all, it's related to the argument over illegal aliens, which stems from a fear of people coming over and taking your job...

At least, if you happen to pick fruit for less than minimum wage, they'll be taking your job... Not that many of us do that...

But anyway, racism is alive and well in America. Four years ago, while I was still in the Air Force, I was involved in kicking a couple of Klan members out of the service, because their "personal beliefs" had started to interfere with their ability to operate in...

OK, let's just get real. We kicked them out because they were racist. Maybe soon I'll tell you why it all came to a head. But that's not the point I'm trying to get to. So let's move on.

I will be the first to admit that there are some people who see racism entirely too easily, of course. My sister's boyfriend (oh, yeah. By the way, he's black. Sorry, I'd have brought it up before, but it's not something I tend to think about. Not that he'd be willing to admit that. But that's also another story. Let's move on...)

Where was I? Oh, right. My sister's boyfriend. He thinks that the latest version of King Kong was a racist movie. See, the natives were black, and they were shown in a negative light. And the gorilla? Well, he's big and black, so he's the symbol of the strong black man. And when he dies in the end, it's symbolic of the white man triumphing over the black man. Makes it a happy ending, so all the little blond girls can sleep well...

Or something like that, anyway.

I can't agree. The natives were, if you look, painted black. Because they worshipped Kong, and wanted to be like him. And as for Kong himself, well, he's... um.... geez, how to put this delicately...

King Kong is a gorilla. They tend to be black.

There's a lot more I could say, about how this is a reimagining of a movie from the 30's, which stays fairly true to the socio-political realities of the 30's, but I don't feel like getting into that. Let's just put it this way: sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar.

But there's a wider point here. Let me turn this thing over to someone older and wiser than I am. New Mexico State Senator Jerry Ortiz y Pino.

The Race Card
by Jerry Ortiz y Pino

It is now apparently a given in American civic dialogue that racism no longer exists in America … if indeed it ever did.

If a minority group member asserts that racism still exists in this country, that incautious soul will immediately be lashed for "playing the race card" and all further rational discussion of the topic will cease.

In fact, the minority group member who rashly points to some tangible bit of evidence that a heck of a lot more than "vestigial" racism persists here will almost certainly get slapped upside the head and charged with being a "reverse racist" … whatever that means.

So vehement is the reflexive denunciation of anyone who dares to question our national record on race that it has succeeded in silencing much of the discussion on this issue. We are laboring under the impossible delusion that "race is not a factor" in our society, that we have become truly, monumentally "colorblind."

Don’t believe any of it. We continue to drag around an enormous ball and chain firmly attached to our collective ankle, the legacy of pervasive racism. It is still easier for a white ex-con in the United States today to get a job than it is for a black person without a criminal record. And when it comes to education, the notion of racial parity increasingly sounds like nothing more than a joke.

It wasn’t always that way. In fact, as recently as the early '80s, data showed we had made some amazing gains in closing the gap between white student achievement and that of minorities. Parity in literacy, high school graduation rates, college admission and even college graduation seemed tantalizingly within our grasp. We were close to having created a society with true equality of educational opportunity.

Then, maddeningly, it began slipping backward. With the Reagan administration, the two lines charting whites and non-whites in our schools, which had been converging slowly over a 20-year period, began drifting apart. They continue to diverge today, with nothing to indicate that the disparity has even made it onto the national radar, let alone sparked any outrage.

In a recent article, Jonathan Kozol notes that American public schools are today, in 2006, more racially segregated than they were at the time of Brown v. Topeka Board of Education, the landmark Supreme Court Decision of the mid-'50s that supposedly ended our "separate but equal" public school systems. That’s an incredible indictment.

Worse, all the numbers are shocking. Minority students drop out of high school at a higher rate than whites, graduate at a lower rate, get suspended more often than whites (even for identical offenses), and have a harder time getting into college, especially the elite upper-echelon schools that for a time actively courted minority students.

What happened? For starters, the courts have backed away from affirmative action programs in university admissions, with the consequence that fewer blacks, Latinos or Native Americans are getting in.

And in a particularly insidious move, Congress has gradually but inexorably, ever since Ronald Reagan, been "trimming" social programs for the poor. "After all, the numbers were getting better all through the '60s and '70s," so the rationale went, "so we can afford to start paring back on the props that made those improved numbers possible."

Scholarship programs were turned into loans - or into nothing. Tutoring and mentoring supportive efforts were morphed into "volunteer faith-based initiatives" … or completely wiped out. Job programs like summer youth employment, Neighborhood Youth Corps, Youth Tutoring Youth—were all axed after being labeled "ineffective."

Democrats like Bill Clinton jumped on the bandwagon, too. The carnage created by his so-called Welfare Reform and Workforce Investment legislation cannot be ignored when you start totaling up the causes for our current malaise in minority education.

In exchange for losing billions of dollars in supportive assistance programs, minorities got a "No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law that has further widened the gap between the educational haves and have-nots. (In a future column, I’ll share some specific case studies that identify how NCLB is failing minority youth.)

Instead of the straight-forward traditional indicators of how we are doing educationally (drop-out and graduation rates; college admissions; literacy levels), NCLB has substituted a nightmarish complex of tests and comparisons that seem exquisitely designed to ensure that white student success will not be challenged in any way and that minority students will be kept in their place.

NCLB is up for re-authorization by Congress this year. It would be altogether appropriate for the issue of parity in public education to be raised during that crucial debate, but to do so would first require an acknowledgment that we still have a vast amount of work before us if we have any hope of converting this into a truly colorblind society.

Meanwhile, looming on the horizon, waiting its turn for our attention, is an even more difficult educational challenge: the assimilation and education of the 11 million predominately Spanish-speaking undocumented immigrants already in this country.

Healing the wounds of racism; assimilating and preparing undocumented workers and their families—these are not minor bumps in the road to be dealt with through casual indifference or as an afterthought. We need to get to work. Both Congress and the president should be digging in for some heavy lifting. Instead, they piddle around. I’m getting very worried.

So there you have it. Sometimes, a gorilla is just a gorilla. But sometimes, the gorilla is actually the elephant in the room that nobody is willing to talk about.

Why am I not surprised?

This story should be stunning. We should be reeling, and angrily calling for an investigation. But it isn't going to happen. It's not enough that George W. Bush sells out to corporations, he has to give it the personal touch, too. He sells out to individuals. All part of the fine service he provides to his "base."

And you don't need to read the whole story. You don't even need to read all of the first five paragraphs: read the first two paragraphs, skip two, and read the fifth.

The federal government is moving to eliminate the jobs of nearly half the lawyers at the Internal Revenue Service who audit tax returns of some of the wealthiest Americans, specifically those who are subject to gift and estate taxes when they transfer parts of their fortunes to their children and others.

The administration plans to cut the jobs of 157 of the agency's 345 estate tax lawyers, plus 17 support personnel, in less than 70 days. Kevin Brown, an IRS deputy commissioner, confirmed the cuts after The New York Times was given internal documents by people inside the IRS who oppose them.

The Bush administration has successfully lobbied Congress to enact measures that reduce the number of Americans who are subject to the estate tax -- which opponents refer to as the "death tax" -- but has failed in its efforts to eliminate the tax entirely.

Brown said Friday that he had ordered the staff cuts because far fewer people were obliged to pay estate taxes under President Bush's legislation.
But six IRS estate tax lawyers whose jobs are likely to be eliminated said in interviews that the cuts were just the latest moves behind the scenes at the IRS to shield people with political connections and complex tax-avoidance devices from thorough audits.

Sharyn Phillips, a veteran IRS estate tax lawyer in Manhattan, called the cuts a "back-door way for the Bush administration to achieve what it cannot get from Congress, which is repeal of the estate tax."

There really isn't much more to say after that point. This is the only Administration in the history of the world who cut taxes during a time of war. And now we're cutting them more. But we're only cutting the taxes of the people who can afford to pay.

This is why America is going broke.

There are no "conservatives" in the Republican Party any more. Why do they keep using that word to refer to themselves?

Louisiana and racist cops. And Cheesy Poofs, for that matter.

Tomorrow, there's going to be a news conference about the racist sheriff of St. Tammany Parish. But is it just an overreaction? Is the sheriff racist, or just misunderstood?

Well, first of all, crooksandliars.com has a lot to be proud of, since nobody was paying any attention to this story until they brought it to the attention of America. We have a video of the sheriff of St Tammany Parish, Jack Strain, making the following statement.

"Now I don’t get into calling people names and all that fact, but if you’re gonna walk the streets of St. Tammany Parish with dreadlocks and 'Chee Wee' hairstyles, then you can expect to be getting a visit from a sheriff’s deputy."

That seems pretty open. Obvious, even. The sheriff is planning to specifically target people based on their haircut. Haircuts mostly worn by black people.

Gee, I don't see how that could possibly be considered racist...

And after John Amato's blog (crooksandliars.com - pay attention, people!) brought this to America's short attention span (on the sixth of July), suddenly the story makes the Associated Press (on the eighth of July).

And now, Annie Spell, one of the only white branch presidents of the NAACP has a relatively high-profile press conference on the subject.

To be entirely honest, the sheriff managed to confuse me a little. Having lived in N'Awlins as a kid, I know that "Chee Wees" are a cheese snack, pretty much like Cheetos. Well, OK, Chee Wees are puffed, and Cheetos are... collapsed, I guess. But if I said that they're like Cheez Doodles or Cheese Curls, I wouldn't get nearly the universal understanding, would I?

OK, so I could have gone for the cheap pop-culture reference and said "Cheesy Poofs," but that would have been a cop-out, wouldn't it?

Anyway... (crap, I knew I had a point here... what the hell was it? Oh, right...) Anyway, I have absolutely no idea how the cheesy snack food became a slang term for a hairstyle, but there it is.

So Annie Spell will be holding a press conference in Covington, Louisiana, in front of the sarcastically-named "St Tammany Parish Justice Center." If you happen to be in the neighborhood, go there.

But this isn't the first time that we've had problems with law enforcement in Louisiana and their racist attitudes toward Katrina survivors. At this stage, very few people remember a little, almost ignored story from the days of Hurricane Katrina. But while the right wing was trying to blame New Orleans natives for not evacuating (despite the fact that 26% of New Orleans residents didn't own cars - yeah, I know, it's shocking in the dawn of the 21st Century, but it's true), nobody remembers that people who tried to evacuate on foot were stopped, threatened with guns, and forced to walk back into the flooded city.

If you have any questions on this incident, direct them to Arthur Lawson, chief of the Gretna Police Department. Perhaps he has an explanation for this unchristian behavior on the part of his officers.

Hey, I'm just being fair and balanced here. We report, you decide.

Par-TAY!

My wife forced me to be sociable this weekend.

That's not something I do well. I'm not a party-animal type of guy. I deal with people well in a business environment, because I can claim work pressures and go away. But for the most part, I'm just as happy not dealing with them.

My wife, on the other hand, has some strange, twisted pack-animal mentality that makes her want to be around other people, no matter how loud, annoying or unavoidable they are. What she has never really grasped is the fact that most people are ignorant. She doggedly assumes that people are worth knowing, rather than avoiding. I don't understand it.

But that's the way she is, and I've pretty much gotten used to it by now.

I was at least fortunate in one respect. She managed to assemble some relatively intelligent people for this party, instead of the usual gang of idiots. No children - there were a couple of teenagers, who we easily kept distracted by dangling shiny objects in front of them, and by setting up video games in the living room.

And the rest of us stood outside and drank, grilled large amounts of meat, made plenty of stupid jokes, and embarrassed the hell out of one lady's teenaged daughter (she didn't like video games, so she came out to join the adults).

We had, for anyone under twenty-one, lemonade, homemade raspberry lemonade, iced tea, milk and water. This, of course, made the teenagers unhappy, because we had our legal drug of choice (alcohol) and they didn't have any of theirs (caffeine). So the ungrateful bastards actually got up en masse, cadged money from whatever adults were nearby, and walked a half-mile to the corner store to buy Coke and Red Bull. Go figure.

As for the adults, my wife made a spectacular white sangria (it involved cheap boxed wine, apricot brandy, a lot of fruit, and some other stuff that I'll just mysteriously call "ingredients," because I wasn't technically paying attention when she told me what was in it). Plus there was wine, brandy, rum and beer. One of our guests brought Bud Light, but consented to drink real beer after I made fun of the carbonated water in his hands.

Another guest brought Mike's Hard Lemonade (actually a variety box, with a range of brightly-colored bottles), which I didn't properly make fun of because I didn't have any at the time. But I found an unopened one in the cooler the next day, and made the mistake of drinking it.

I don't think that I approve of Mike's. It tastes like Koolaid, and you can't even tell that it has 5% alcohol. This undoubtedly makes it popular with teenagers: because you can't tell it contains alcohol, and because only teenagers can drink that much high-fructose corn syrup without puking.

Trust me on this, if you see a Mike's drinker puking in pretty rainbow colors, it's because their stomach finally rebelled from all the crap, and not because of the healthy, life-sustaining alcohol in it.

But all in all, the whole thing didn't work out too badly. I was in a crowd of people all day, and I didn't kill anyone. And now my wife owes me, for putting up with all of this.

To keep balance in the universe, of course, the next day I had to cover for a coworker who was sick. I had to answer phones and do Customer Service-type work.

I suspect that it's because God hates me.

Flagging Enthusiasm

I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
~~ Representative Craig Washington (D-Texas)

Once again, our Congress is ignoring the environment, Iraq, the destruction of the economy, and everything else that really matters. Instead, they're wasting time and money on a subject that looks good for the voters: a ban on burning the US flag. And not just something simple like a law: they want an amendment to the Constitution.

This is, of course, a scam. This is something that lawmakers do to hide the fact that they haven't done anything worthwhile.

I'm not sure who came up with it first, but there's a basic truth floating around out there.

Countries that already outlaw burning the national flag include China, North Korea, Iraq, Iran and Cuba.

That's Iraq under Saddam, by the way. That seems like a nice crowd to be associated with, doesn't it?

Let's be clear about one thing. Nobody can be hurt when a flag is burned, unless they're busy wrapping themselves in it. A flag is just a symbol. And before we get our knickers all knotted up over the destruction of a symbol, perhaps we should ignore the symbol for a moment. Because we should be more concerned about the people destroying what that flag stands for - America and the values this country used to represent.

There isn't a lot of flag burning going on in America right now. It all seems to be overseas, and mostly in the Middle East - the last place America invaded, you might notice. And oddly enough, since they aren't subject to American laws over there, they aren't too worried about getting arrested for their un-American activities.

And by the way, do you happen to know what the official method of destroying a tattered or frayed flag is? Let's check out the US Code - to be exact, 4 USC 8(k):

The flag, when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display, should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning.

OK. So if this amendment passes, they won't be getting a lot of volunteers for that duty.

Oh, wait. The difference between respectfully burning the flag, and burning the flag in protest of something changes how the arsonist in question is treated? So now we get to arrest people because of what they're thinking? Who is it out there that thinks that a formally-defined federal law enforcing "thought crimes" is a good idea?

Personally, I don't have a problem with Joe Iraqi burning an American flag. I already knew he didn't like us. On the other hand, I have a problem with people who attach flags onto their car to show their patriotism. This started happening a lot right after 9/11.

Trouble is, the average flag (and especially the average small souvenir-type flag, cheaply made in some third-world country) isn't made to stand up to speeds of sixty miles an hour, or even thirty miles an hour. So it doesn't take long before you end up with a frayed red-gray-and-blue rag on a stick. And yes, that qualifies as desecration.

Incidentally, a car is a carefully-engineered machine, and anything attached to the outside, even a three-by-six souvenir flag, will increase wind resistance by a small amount, which will increase the amount of fuel that the car burns. And even if it's only by a miniscule amount, that amount is multiplied by the thousands of other cars on the road with attached flags.

And increased gas mileage means more money into the pockets of Middle Eastern regimes, many of which are known to support terrorism. Which means that by attaching a flag to your car, you are supporting terrorism. Think about that for a while.

But that brings us to the biggest problem with an amendment to the Constitution on his subject. Do you just ban "burning" (which would leave the market wide open for "US Flag Toilet Paper®"), or are you going with a more general "desecration"?

Well, the trouble is, you then have to define "desecration." For example, how about a jacket with an American flag across the back? Or a red-white-and-blue bandanna tied around your head?

What about a Ku Klux Klan rally? Personally, I think that when the American flag is used to celebrate racism, then that action qualifies as desecration. But you don't see me rushing to get an amendment into the Constitution, do you?

Many businesses use the American flag in ads to sell their product. Great. But does that mean that we have to look over the newspaper before we use it to start a fire in the fireplace? Don't want to have the Feds breaking down the door when the two of you are making love on the rug in front of a roaring fire, do you?

Or how about a soda in a "Forth of July Collectable can?" Are you allowed to just throw that away, or will there be a special method for disposing of it?

If you have a flagpole in your front yard and the flag touches the ground as you're lowering it, is that a problem? Even if it gets muddy? What about those displays by various groups where a bunch of souvenir flags are planted in the ground? Are you subject to arrest for stepping on one?

Which leads into the other problem with this concept: they haven't defined "flag." Yeah, it seems like a simple question, but let's go back to that newspaper ad. Suppose somebody printed an American flag on a sheet of newsprint, with a one-inch white border. Is that a flag? Or is it a picture of a flag? And if it's a picture of a flag instead of a real flag, can you burn it, or would you still get in trouble?

For that matter, what if you ran some polyvinyl through that printing press? Is it still a flag if it has a white border around it? Or is it an image of a flag on a cloth-like substance? How about painting an American flag in oil paint on a canvas? It's just a painting, right?

What if someone takes an American flag (an actual flag this time), and paints a large black swastika in the middle of it? Can you burn that? Wouldn't any true patriot want to?

And which flag are we talking about, anyway? America has had a bunch of them, after all. Is it just the current flag that we can't burn, or are we including all the flags through history? The one with thirteen stars in a circle? The forty-eight-star flag from the fifties looks awfully similar to the current one.

What about the various versions of the "Don't Tread On Me" snake? Does he count? That one's usually not even in the right colors.

An amendment to the Constitution over a badly defined and unenforceable "crime" is a waste of both time and money. And how many people would be arrested for burning a red-white-and-yellow flag? Or one with fourteen stripes or fifty-four stars? By definition, they are innocent of any crime, although it might not appear that way to the casual observer.

Maybe we should stick to prosecuting crimes where people are actually getting hurt. Can we do that?

Suffering from Rove Rage

You know, it's strange. I spent twenty-one years in the military. I've had three kids (two of them are twenty and technically adults; one is sixteen and technically a pain in the ass). It takes a lot to make me angry. I've been yelled at by experts. I've been lied to, in my face, by both experts and complete amateurs. I've hunkered down in fox holes, wondering if the next bomb would drop just a little bit too close. I've watched inexperienced, uncaring idiots try to destroy the country that gave me life.

And I'm pretty placid.

I know about the morons wandering through America. I can even rail against them. But, for the most part, I don't really get carried away with my feelings. It takes a lot to make me really angry. I see the morons, I wonder at their ability to ignore simple logic, but it's been years since I've felt the heat rising to my face, felt my blood pressure rising, and been unable to control my anger over the injustices being perpetrated by an uncaring government.

On the other hand, I left the Air Force because George Bush got reelected.

For entirely logical reasons, of course. I felt that it was time to get out of the military. I'd been to Iraq, and I hadn't had to kill anyone. And I didn't want to take the chance that I would end up going back and killing an Iraqi, who would be attacking people invading his country - in other words, doing for his country exactly what I'd be trying to do for mine if our situations were reversed.

(Yes, I understand that there are outside forces at work in Iraq. But there are also people born in Iraq, who see Americans as the evil bastards who attacked them, destroyed their country, and started torturing and killing innocent Iraqi people. And those are the people I wouldn't want to shoot.)

However, just like everybody else, I'm a prisoner of my upbringing. My father was a career Army officer: a West Point graduate, from a time when they were still able to instill ethics in their officers. And then I became a non-commissioned officer myself, with a certain inherited sense of history and ethics.

So you might (or might not) understand that I hate to be lied to. It’s a flaw in my character, but one that I can't really control that well. Liars and hypocrites bother me, and I find myself automatically disliking them.

When you couple that minor quirk in my personality with a barely-perceptible pride in my military background, and you end up with a convergence of attitudes that, to be honest, rarely intrudes on my life.

Until Karl Roves stands up and talks.

The man is bad enough when he stays behind the scenes. He's one of those lower life forms that do well in politics. He likes to play his little games, lying about people and setting up his little tricks. And he seems to be pretty good at it, until he starts to make speeches.

Karl Rove's entire career has been built around dirty politics. Any history of his career mentions him sneaking in to the headquarters of Illinois Democrat Alan Dixon, stealing some official letterhead, and sending out a thousand invitations to a party at the Democrat's headquarters, promising "free beer, free food, girls and a good time for nothing." (This was in 1970, before home computers and printers, when "letterhead stationary" meant a lot more than it does today.)

Or in 1986, Rove was working for Republican Bill Clements. Right before a debate between Clements and Democrat Mark White, Rove told reporters that the Democrats had bugged his office. Oddly enough, the battery in the bug was so small that it needed to be changed every few hours, and it had just been changed out before Rove showed it to the press. The police and FBI dropped the investigation. But White's reputation was shot, and he subsequently lost the election.

With just a little bit of research, you start to see that Karl Rove has a long history of dishonesty and double-dealing. But let's look at more recent news.

Rove gave a speech in New Hampshire a week ago, where he accused Democrats of being cowards.

(Nor is this the first time that he crawled out from under his rock and called Democrats cowards and traitors. Odd how that works: if you disagree with Bush's policies, there's no way that you could just have a difference of opinion. You must immediately be labeled a traitor. Or a Nazi. Strange, that...)

Let's consider the words of that brave leader of men, Karl Rove.

"When it gets tough, they fall back on that party's old platform of cutting and running," he said. "They may be with you for the first few bullets but they won't be there for the last tough battles."

But strangely enough, despite his strong words about patriotism and bravery, when Karl Rove had the opportunity to go to war himself, he ran away.

While my father, a man with a wife and three children, was spending two tours in Vietnam, Karl Rove was dodging the draft. He took student deferments when he wasn't a full-time student. He moved and didn't notify the draft board.

Of course, he isn't the only one. George Bush has never been able to document his time in the National Guard. Dick Cheney took five deferments to get out of Vietnam. Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz - even the Republican's unelected spokesman, Rush Limbaugh, avoided the draft because of a boil on his butt (OK, technically a pilonidal cyst, but I'm too busy resisting any "pain in the ass" jokes to make a medical diagnosis).

And that's where my problem with lying starts to kick in. If a pasty-faced coward like Karl Rove is going to stand up there and talk about bravery, maybe he should reach down and see if he has testicles of his own.

Karl Rove didn't have the courage to stand up for his country for "the first few bullets," much less "the last tough battles." It's time for him to shut the hell up.

Cats make a house a home (a Home for the Criminally Insane)

You know, I've never been a cat person. Dogs, at least, will give you unconditional love in exchange for the disgusting food you feed them. Cats, on the other hand, will ignore you until they're hungry, when they'll yowl in a loud and obnoxious manner until you feed them.

And sometimes, they might even consent to lie next to you and let you pet them.

But, despite the obvious similarities between cats, as it turns out, they have distinctly different personalities. As I've mentioned elsewhere, I seem to have become the zookeeper for a collection of (among other beasts) four different cats. And here's the way you tell them apart (aside from relatively insignificant differences in size and fur color, of course).

Our primary cat, Bucky, is a large (but not quite overweight) orange tabby beast, whose primary purpose in life is finding a comfortable place to sit. She has the gift of immovable stubbornness, in that if she's sitting somewhere, that place is off limits for everybody else in the family. She will even stare down the dogs, if they deign to intrude on her space. Once she's ensconced herself in a seat, it is, by God, hers. Nobody dares to move her.

Except me, of course. Because I'm apparently a bastard. I'll just sweep her from whatever spot I plan to sit down in, and plant my butt right in the recently-vacated cat-shaped dimple (and then get yelled at by my wife for being mean to the poor little kitty).

Screw it. There's only one computer chair, and I'm not going to learn to type standing up at this point in my life. But if you're looking for two words to describe Bucky, I think I've encompassed them in the last two paragraphs. "Stubborn" and "lazy."

But then there's our second cat, Phantom. Ugliest beast you ever saw. In a moment of weakness, I said that we could have a second cat ("But only one!" You see how well that worked out...) to keep the first one company. My only rule was that we should get a kitten. (Hey, I like kittens. What's your point?) And we ended up with a black-and-brown mottled beast with a light spot across one eye. My wife says it looks like the Phantom of the Opera mask. Hence the name.

Personally, I think it looks like an irregular birthmark, but nobody wants to hear my opinion. (I remember when the "man of the house" was respected. What the hell happened to that perfectly good attitude?)

Phantom (occasionally Menace, as in "the Phantom Menace") is a bully. She's the second biggest cat in the house, and she figures it's her duty to keep the other cats in shape. She's their personal trainer - her exercise regimen consists of jumping on them from darkened corners, attacking them when they're asleep, and generally making life "interesting" for them.

She doesn't do this to Bucky, because Bucky wouldn't stand for it. But she still has two other cats to annoy, so she's happy.

So let's consider those two other cants. We have Pandora, who's supposed to belong to my daughter. (Oddly enough, the daughter moved out, but the cat's still here. How the hell does that happen?) Pure black, small for her age, and needy. I stopped having to wake up for two o'clock feedings years ago. Nonetheless, I still find myself wandering down the hall at God-awful early hours of the night, to grab the lonely cat yowling in despair and lob her into my son's room. (Hey, let him take care of her. I'm going back to bed...) She can't stand to be alone, and she'll sob piteously if she suddenly thinks that everyone has left.

Not that anyone has. She's just on the wrong end of the house, and doesn't have the brains to find her way back to us, across that huge 20-yard expanse of rug, without getting lost.

And finally, we have Abby. (Short for, as far as I'm concerned, Abby-normal.) No matter how stupid Pandora might be, she's a Nobel Prize winner next to Abby. I have actually seen Abby jump for a windowsill and miss. Three times. I have seen her sitting at the end of the hallway, watching as Pandora gets mugged by Phantom: Pandora runs away, Phantom retreats into her shadowed corner. And Abby goes marching down the hall, right into the kill-zone where even the houseplants can figure out that Phantom is going to attack her.

All the brains of a ball-peen hammer. I wonder sometimes why Darwin doesn't come back from the dead and kill her himself.

Abby has issues. For example, she doesn't like cat food. She'll eat it, if forced, but she prefers dog food. In fact, she loves it so much that I've come into the kitchen to find one of the dogs snorking up the kibble like a vacuum cleaner on steroids, and there, on the other side of the bowl, is Abby, coated in flying dog-spittle, delicately munching away.

So yes, if forced, I will admit that cats have personalities. Maybe not good ones, but personalities.

I still prefer dogs.

Let's check in on Michelle Malkin

So, here's what we have.

On October 20, 1970, Michelle Maglalang was born to Filipino parents in the United States on a work visa (a fact that her official bio is strangely silent about, although you can find it mentioned in passing at other sites). She married college sweetheart Jesse Malkin (who some have accused of being her puppet-master/co-writer, or at least the source of her political leanings), and began writing under the name (you guessed it) Michelle Malkin.

She recently made some statements critical of "anchor babies" - babies that foreign nationals have in the United States, which those damned brown people (or as she calls them, "obstetric tourists") use to gain American citizenship. A scenario which sounds strangely like her own biography.

The General, in another brilliant letter, called her on this apparent hypocrisy. Somehow, I doubt that she'll reply to him.

Hell, she never sent me an answer. Not that I'm bitter or anything.

Absentee Blogger

Haven't posted for two weeks or so. Major plumbing work in my house, and didn't have the time. Sorry for those (two) of you who are actually reading my babblings.

Here's some thoughts on home repair for you:

1. Every job takes three times as long as you allow for it. Even if you budget for three times as long, you've then moved the end date up three times farther into the future.

2. Just when you think you've got a handle on fixing one problem, something else breaks.

2(a). If you think that you've got a handle on fixing one problem, you don't know the whole story.
2(b). Oh, yeah, and by the way. That other thing? It's still gonna break.

3. Pain is God's way of saying that you're doing it right.

3(a). Except when it isn't.

4. You didn't need that knuckle, did you?

5. Hear that grinding noise? That's gonna cost you. Feel free to switch out "dripping," "whining," "snapping," or "crackling." Or no noise at all.

6. You know that wall board you just ripped out? Four choices.

6(a). You didn't rip out enough.
6(b). You ripped out wa-aaay too much.
6(c). You ripped out entirely the wrong one.
6(d). Hey, check out the new problem you just found!

7. "Uh, honey? Did you remember to pay the homeowner's insurance?"

Blast from the (recent) past

I find myself easily distracted. I was never diagnosed with ADD or anything, but sometimes, I'm doing research for my little weekly (and mostly ignored by the American populace) blog/column, and I suddenly find myself at a complete standstill, reading something unrelated to the subject at hand.

Unless you were living under a rock for the past two months, you are probably aware of the Stephen Colbert speech, delivered six feet from George Bush, at the White House Correspondent's Association dinner. It was a masterpiece, but apparently, all of the people stunned by the audacity of Mr. Colbert is forgetting where he came from. He was one of the major writers/"performers" on The Daily Show, and about a year and a half ago, the spokesmodel from The Daily Show, Jon Stewart, appeared on Crossfire, and pretty much destroyed that show. It was cancelled shortly after Mr. Stewart's appearance, and it also brought to Tucker Carlson's attention what a stupid piece of clothing a bowtie actually is.

So here's the appearance that ended a news program, and which shows the fetal appearance of the attitude that brought us the Stephen Colbert speech.

(It's slightly, but only slightly, edited for readability. I removed most of the superfluous "(LAUGHTER)" and "(CROSSTALK)" lines. I kept a few, when laughter was more of a punctuation, not just a random sound).

BEGALA: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. As both of our loyal viewers, of course, know, our show is about all left vs. white, black vs. white, paper vs. plastic, Red Sox against the Yankees. That's why every day, we have two guests with their own unique perspective on the news. But today, CROSSFIRE is very difficult. We have just one guest. He's either the funniest smart guy on TV or the smartest funnyman. We'll find out which in a minute. But he's certainly an Emmy Award winner, the host of Comedy Central's "Daily Show" and the co-author of the new mega best-seller "America (The Book): A Citizen's Guide to Democracy Inaction," at your bookstores everywhere. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the CROSSFIRE Jon Stewart.

STEWART: Thank you.

CARLSON: Thank you for joining us.

STEWART: Thank you very much. That was very kind of you to say. Can I say something very quickly? Why do we have to fight? (laughter) The two of you? Can't we just -- say something nice about John Kerry right now.

CARLSON: I like John. I care about John Kerry.

STEWART: And something about President Bush.

BEGALA: He'll be unemployed soon? (laughter) I failed the test. I'm sorry.

CARLSON: See, I made the effort anyway.

BEGALA: No, actually, I knew Bush in Texas a little bit. And the truth is, he's actually a great guy. He's not a very good president. But he's actually a very good person. I don't think you should have to hate to oppose somebody, but it makes it easier. (laughter)

STEWART: Why do you argue, the two of you? (laughter) I hate to see it.

CARLSON: We enjoy it.

STEWART: Let me ask you a question.

CARLSON: Well, let me ask you a question first.

STEWART: All right.

CARLSON: Is John Kerry -- is John Kerry really the best? I mean, John Kerry has...

STEWART: Is he the best? I thought Lincoln was good.

CARLSON: Is he the best the Democrats can do? This year, of the whole field.

STEWART: I had always thought, in a democracy -- and, again, I don't know -- I've only lived in this country -- that there's a process. They call them primaries.

CARLSON: Right.

STEWART: And they don't always go with the best, but they go with whoever won. So is he the best? According to the process.

CARLSON: Right. But of the nine guys running, who do you think was best. Do you think he was the best, the most impressive?

STEWART: The most impressive?

CARLSON: Yes.

STEWART: I thought Al Sharpton was very impressive. I enjoyed his way of speaking. I think, oftentimes, the person that knows they can't win is allowed to speak the most freely, because, otherwise, shows with titles, such as CROSSFIRE., or "HARDBALL" or "I'm Going to Kick Your Ass" or... (laughter) ...will jump on it. In many ways, it's funny. And I made a special effort to come on the show today, because I have privately, amongst my friends and also in occasional newspapers and television shows, mentioned this show as being bad.

BEGALA: We have noticed.

STEWART: And I wanted to -- I felt that that wasn't fair and I should come here and tell you that I don't -- it's not so much that it's bad, as it's hurting America.

CARLSON: But in its defense...

STEWART: So I wanted to come here today and say... Here's just what I wanted to tell you guys.

CARLSON: Yes.

STEWART: Stop. (laughter) Stop, stop, stop, stop hurting America. And come work for us, because we, as the people...

CARLSON: How do you pay?

STEWART: The people -- not well. (laughter)

BEGALA: Better than CNN, I'm sure.

STEWART: But you can sleep at night. See, the thing is, we need your help. Right now, you're helping the politicians and the corporations. And we're left out there to mow our lawns.

BEGALA: By beating up on them? You just said we're too rough on them when they make mistakes.

STEWART: No, no, no, you're not too rough on them. You're part of their strategies. You are partisan... what do you call it?... hacks.

CARLSON: Wait, Jon, let me tell you something valuable that I think we do that I'd like to see you...

STEWART: Something valuable?

CARLSON: Yes.

STEWART: I would like to hear it.

CARLSON: And I'll tell you. When politicians come on, it's nice to get them to try and answer the question. And in order to do that, we try and ask them pointed questions. I want to contrast our questions with some questions you asked John Kerry recently, up on the screen.

STEWART: If you want to compare your show to a comedy show, you're more than welcome to.

CARLSON: No, no, no, here's the point.

STEWART: If that's your goal.

CARLSON: It's not.

STEWART: I wouldn't aim for us. I'd aim for "Seinfeld." That's a very good show.

CARLSON: Kerry won't come on this show. He will come on your show.

STEWART: Right.

CARLSON: Let me suggest why he wants to come on your show.

STEWART: Well, we have civilized discourse.

CARLSON: Well, here's an example of the civilized discourse. Here are three of the questions you asked John Kerry. You have a chance to interview the Democratic nominee. You asked him questions such as, quote, "How are you holding up? Is it hard not to take the attacks personally?"

STEWART: Yes.

CARLSON: "Have you ever flip-flopped?" et cetera, et cetera.

STEWART: Yes.

CARLSON: Didn't you feel like -- you got the chance to interview the guy. Why not ask him a real question, instead of just suck up to him?

STEWART: Yes. "How are you holding up?" is a real suck-up. And I was actually giving him a hot stone massage as we were doing it.

CARLSON: It sounded that way. It did.

STEWART: You know, it's interesting to hear you talk about my responsibility.

CARLSON: I felt the sparks between you.

STEWART: I didn't realize that -- and maybe this explains quite a bit -- that the news organizations look to Comedy Central for their cues on integrity. (laughter) So what I would suggest is, when you talk about you're holding politicians' feet to fire, I think that's disingenuous. I think you're...

CARLSON: "How are you holding up?" I mean, come on.

STEWART: No, no, no. But my role isn't, I don't think...

CARLSON: But you can ask him a real question, don't you think, instead of saying...

STEWART: I don't think I have to. By the way, I also asked him, "Were you in Cambodia?" But I didn't really care. (laughter) Because I don't care, because I think it's stupid.

CARLSON: I can tell.

STEWART: But my point is this. If your idea of confronting me is that I don't ask hard-hitting enough news questions, we're in bad shape, fellows. (laughter)

CARLSON: We're here to love you, not confront you. We're here to be nice.

STEWART: No, no, no, but what I'm saying is this. I'm not. I'm here to confront you, because we need help from the media and they're hurting us. And it's -- the idea is...

BEGALA: Let me get this straight. If the indictment is -- if the indictment is -- and I have seen you say this -- that... that CROSSFIRE reduces everything, as I said in the intro, to left, right, black, white.

STEWART: Yes.

BEGALA: Well, it's because, see, we're a debate show.

STEWART: No, no, no, no, that would be great.

BEGALA: It's like saying The Weather Channel reduces everything to a storm front.

STEWART: I would love to see a debate show.

BEGALA: We're 30 minutes in a 24-hour day where we have each side on, as best we can get them, and have them fight it out.

STEWART: No, no, no, no, that would be great. To do a debate would be great. But that's like saying pro wrestling is a show about athletic competition.

CARLSON: Jon, Jon, Jon, I'm sorry. I think you're a good comedian. I think your lectures are boring. Let me ask you a question on the news.

STEWART: Now, this is theater. It's obvious. How old are you?

CARLSON: Thirty-five.

STEWART: And you wear a bow tie. (laughter)

CARLSON: Yes, I do. I do.

STEWART: So this is...

CARLSON: I know. I know. I know. You're a...

STEWART: So this is theater.

CARLSON: Now, let me just...

STEWART: Now, listen, I'm not suggesting that you're not a smart guy, because those are not easy to tie.

CARLSON: They're difficult.

STEWART: But the thing is that this -- you're doing theater, when you should be doing debate, which would be great. It's not honest. What you do is not honest. What you do is partisan hackery. And I will tell you why I know it.

CARLSON: You had John Kerry on your show and you sniff his throne and you're accusing us of partisan hackery?

STEWART: Absolutely.

CARLSON: You've got to be kidding me. He comes on and you...

STEWART: You're on CNN. The show that leads into me is puppets making crank phone calls. What is wrong with you?

CARLSON: Well, I'm just saying, there's no reason for you -- when you have this marvelous opportunity not to be the guy's butt boy, to go ahead and be his butt boy. Come on. It's embarrassing.

STEWART: I was absolutely his butt boy. I was so far -- you would not believe what he ate two weeks ago... You know, the interesting thing is, you have a responsibility to the public discourse, and you fail miserably.

CARLSON: You need to get a job at a journalism school, I think.

STEWART: You need to go to one. The thing that I want to say is, when you have people on for just knee-jerk, reactionary talk...

CARLSON: Wait. I thought you were going to be funny. Come on. Be funny.

STEWART: No. No. I'm not going to be your monkey.

BEGALA: Go ahead. Go ahead.

STEWART: I watch your show every day. And it kills me.

CARLSON: I can tell you love it.

STEWART: It's so -- oh, it's so painful to watch. You know, because we need what you do. This is such a great opportunity you have here to actually get politicians off of their marketing and strategy.

CARLSON: Is this really Jon Stewart? What is this, anyway?

STEWART: Yes, it's someone who watches your show and cannot take it anymore. I just can't.

CARLSON: What's it like to have dinner with you? It must be excruciating. Do you like lecture people like this or do you come over to their house and sit and lecture them; they're not doing the right thing, that they're missing their opportunities, evading their responsibilities?

STEWART: If I think they are.

CARLSON: I wouldn't want to eat with you, man. That's horrible.

STEWART: I know. And you won't. But the thing I want to get to...

BEGALA: We did promise naked pictures of the Supreme Court justices.

CARLSON: Yes, we did. Let's get to those.

BEGALA: They're in this book, which is a very funny book.

STEWART: Why can't we just talk -- please, I beg of you guys, please.

CARLSON: I think you watch too much CROSSFIRE. We're going to take a quick break.

STEWART: No, no, no, please.

CARLSON: No, no, hold on. We've got commercials.

STEWART: Please. Please stop.

CARLSON: Next, Jon Stewart in the "Rapid Fire."

STEWART: Please stop.

CARLSON: Hopefully, he'll be here, we hope, we think.

(Here, we cut a chunk where Wolf Blitzer pimps his own show)

CARLSON: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. We're talking to Jon Stewart, who was just lecturing us on our moral inferiority. Jon, you're bumming us out. Tell us, what do you think about the Bill O'Reilly vibrator story?

STEWART: I'm sorry. I don't.

CARLSON: Oh, OK.

STEWART: What do you think?

BEGALA: Let me change the subject.

STEWART: Where's your moral outrage on this?

CARLSON: I don't have any.

STEWART: I know.

BEGALA: Which candidate do you suppose would provide you better material?

STEWART: I'm sorry?

BEGALA: Which candidate do you suppose would provide you better material if he won?

STEWART: Mr. T. I think he'd be the funniest. I don't...

BEGALA: Don't you have a stake in it that way, as not just a citizen, but as a professional comic?

STEWART: Right, which I hold to be much more important than as a citizen.

BEGALA: Well, there you go. But who would you provide you better material, do you suppose?

STEWART: I don't really know. That's kind of not how we look at it. We look at, the absurdity of the system provides us the most material. And that is best served by sort of the theater of it all, you know, which, by the way, thank you both, because it's been helpful.

CARLSON: But, if Kerry gets elected, is it going to -- you have said you're voting for him. You obviously support him. It's clear. Will it be harder for you to mock his administration if he becomes president?

STEWART: No. Why would it be harder?

CARLSON: Because you support...

STEWART: The only way it would be harder is if his administration is less absurd than this one. So, in that case, if it's less absurd, then, yes, I think it would be harder. But, I mean, it would be hard to top this group, quite frankly. In terms of absurdity and their world matching up to the one that -- you know, it was interesting. President Bush was saying, John Kerry's rhetoric doesn't match his record. But I've heard President Bush describe his record. His record doesn't match his record. So I don't worry about it in that respect. But let me ask you guys, again, a question, because we talked a little bit about, you're actually doing honest debate and all that. But, after the debates, where do you guys head to right afterwards?

CARLSON: The men's room.

STEWART: Right after that?

BEGALA: Home.

STEWART: Spin alley.

BEGALA: Home.

STEWART: No, spin alley.

BEGALA: What are you talking about? You mean at these debates?

STEWART: Yes. You go to spin alley, the place called spin alley. Now, don't you think that, for people watching at home, that's kind of a drag, that you're literally walking to a place called deception lane? ...Like, it's spin alley. It's -- don't you see, that's the issue I'm trying to talk to you guys...

BEGALA: No, I actually believe -- I have a lot of friends who work for President Bush. I went to college with some of them.

CARLSON: Neither of us was ever in the spin room, actually.

BEGALA: No, I did -- I went to do the Larry King show. They actually believe what they're saying. They want to persuade you. That's what they're trying to do by spinning. But I don't doubt for a minute these people who work for President Bush, who I disagree with on everything, they believe that stuff, Jon. This is not a lie or a deception at all. They believe in him, just like I believe in my guy.

STEWART: I think they believe President Bush would do a better job. And I believe the Kerry guys believe President Kerry would do a better job. But what I believe is, they're not making honest arguments. So what they're doing is, in their mind, the ends justify the means.

BEGALA: I don't think so at all.

CARLSON: I do think you're more fun on your show. Just my opinion. OK, up next, Jon Stewart goes one on one with his fans...

STEWART: You know what's interesting, though? You're as big a dick on your show as you are on any show.

CARLSON: Now, you're getting into it. I like that.

STEWART: Yes.

CARLSON: OK. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

There you go. Just another piece of pop history that we all need to remember.

What The Hell Is Your Major Malfunction, Private Pyle?

We've had a lot of trouble with reporters lately. First, the Stock Market tumbled because USA Today reported that the NSA was spying on Americans. And now, those America-hating traitors at the Hartford Courant reported that the Army was sending suicidal troops into combat.

It didn't matter if the troop's commander was aware of the situation, or whether the soldier was taking anti-depressants (which even GlaxoSmithKline now admits lead to an increased risk of suicide in younger patients), the soldiers were still deployed to Iraq.

Let's look at this statistically. Among the entire population of the United States, rates hover around nine suicides per 100,000; of course, this includes the entire population and all its extremes: the elderly, the terminally ill, and any number of other mental and physical states which could be considered statistical anomalies. The military, of course, weeds their personnel, to a certain extent, to remove the ill and the old; they also have psychological tests that are supposed to prevent some extremes of behavioral disparity (not that those tests are as effective as they could be).

Among the military, twenty-two deployed soldiers committed suicide last year, accounting for one in five of all non-combat deaths (this, of course, does not factor in any suicides that might have been made to look accidental), out of roughly 130,000 troops deployed to Iraq - or roughly 17 suicides per 100,000 people, almost twice the national average. And of course, even if they do get home, those soldiers will have a difficult time getting counseling, what with the VA withdrawing benefits related to a diagnosis of PTSD from Iraq veterans (in fact, the military is becoming positively apathetic toward what they called "shell shock" in World War One, redeploying soldiers diagnosed with PTSD to Iraq).

A study has been released showing that the British military has similar problems.The US Navy, suffering from increased suicide rates among their submariners, is at least trying to do something about it.

And it seems obvious how the enemy will use this report. First, they'll start playing sad songs twenty-four/seven on their radio stations. Then they'll start forging "Dear John" letters from home. And that will be the end for this Great American Experiment in Nation-Building.

The Insanity Of The Bush Tax Cuts

This little rant was written by Andi Matheny, and originally posted on Hoffmania. It pretty accurately covers my thoughts on the subject. So why reinvent the wheel? Just check out how she put it.

Please pay attention to what happened in Congress today while you were working and raising your families.

In an election year, in order to appease the electorate, and because no one in government has the guts to face reality, Congress once again passed tax cuts. Here's how it breaks down:

If you earn 50,000 or less per year
You will save $2 - 46

If you earn 50,000 - 100,000 per year
You will save $110 - 403

If you earn 100,000 - 1 million per year
You will save $1388 - 5562

If you earn 1 million or more
You will save $41,977 (average)

Here's what was deleted from the tax cuts package:

Deductions for state and local taxes
College tuition fees
School supplies for teachers who pay for them out of their pockets Businesses hiring welfare to work - (bringing people out of welfare)

The war in Iraq has already cost us approximately $260 Billion dollars - we are spending around a billion a week for this war. This is the first time in history a war has been fought with tax cuts. Remember, we couldn't "afford" body armor for a number of our troops.

By the end of the Bush presidency, our national debt will be $10 TRILLION dollars. If that was due today, it would cost each of us $28,000.

25% of our debt is carried by foreign countries. Japan is holding notes worth $673 Billion, and China comes in second at $265 Billion. If they decide another country is a better investment, we are in trouble.

This has been one of the most fiscally irresponsible administrations and Congresses in history. They are not doing what is right for our country - they are doing what they think YOU want them to do so they can get re-elected. They have no faith in the American people, nor have they asked Americans to make one sacrifice, besides the military and their families for this war in Iraq. In the meantime, Homeland Security is little better than it was 5 years ago, deep cuts have been made in school programs, and huge hikes in state colleges and student loans have put college out of reach for lower income kids. And the only people who are benefiting from these tax cuts? The top 2% tax bracket. And by the way, most economists agree, raising taxes on the top 2% will not have an adverse effect on the economy - but even if it did, which way do you want to gamble?

If this information has stirred you to take any action, please write to your representatives and tell them to have the guts to govern responsibly. If you have a blog, you have my permission to reprint this. Most people I know know the sacrifice my family has made for this war, and have asked me what they can do. Do this.

Poor Bewildered George

Sometimes, you almost have to pity George W. Bush.

Not a lot, really, since he essentially brought all his troubles on himself. But consider how things look from his perspective. Right now, he has to be feeling an emotion that most of us, as we grow into adulthood, leave behind.

Looking around at "his" country, he has to be feeling as if he can't do anything right.

In the larger sense, this is true. He screwed up all of the jobs he ever held. He couldn't even handle avoiding Vietnam by joining the National Guard - he rarely, if ever, showed up for duty. (Remember those National Guard documents that got a certain veteran news anchor fired? The facts were never in dispute. The documents themselves might have been forgeries, but the facts in them seemed to have been correct.)

And look at the situation lately. His Social Security "reform" was shot down. Despite his best efforts, scientists are coming forward to admit that global warming actually exists. It's becoming obvious, even to people who only watch Fox News, that Iraq is a disaster; this becomes even more obvious when retired generals are coming forward in droves to call for the firing of Donald Rumsfeld. Syndicated comedians named Colbert are standing five feet away from him, and mocking him by using talking points that Rush Limbaugh would be proud of.

His approval ratings are so low that squirrels trip over them. Because of his policies, America now owes more money to foreign governments than it did during the administrations of all of the previous presidents added together. Karl Rove is too busy worrying about becoming a prison bitch to properly smear the president's enemies. And his vice president shot a man in the face.

So Bush resorted to the tactic that got him elected for a second term, despite his obvious failings as an economist, a tactician, an administrator, and a human being. He tried to find an enemy to demonize.

This is a tactic that has usually worked well for him in the past. The fact that 11 states had gay marriage amendments on the ballots during the 2004 elections probably helped sweep him into a second term (the Diebold machines apparently had a lot to do with that, too, but let's not get into that right now). Admittedly, the fact that he demonized every Islamic person in the world, based on the actions of a few radical fundamentalists, blew up in his face when the Dubai ports issue came up. But for the most part, it's worked: liberals hate America, peace activists are supporting terrorism, and the French are evil smelly bastards.

But, looking around for a new enemy to grab the MTV-addled attention span of the American citizen, he found that old favorite, the illegal immigrant. And as soon as he tried to force the "wetback" stereotype into a more Satanic image, that soggy Chihuahua twisted around and bit him in the ass.

See, one thing that Bush didn't count on was that Big Business, his most faithful ally, wouldn't support him in this new Crusade. Because the dirty secret is, Big Business gets a lot of work done by people working for less than minimum wage. Sometimes, these people are in foreign countries (like sweatshops in the Marianas Islands, which Tom DeLay declared were "the perfect petri dish of capitalism"), and sometimes, it's a group of undocumented aliens somewhere in California or Georgia.

So pity George Bush. Everything he touches turns to dung. I just hope Laura Bush is properly supportive.

On the other hand, we still have two and a half more years with Bush in charge. So maybe you should pity America more.

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.