George W has decided to not deposit oil into the strategic reserves over the summer, thereby hoping to lower the cost of oil due to increased supply. Thats about 25,000 barrels a day. Any idea how many barrels we consume per day?

Ten Million

Anyone think 25,000 barrels really matters when we import 10,000,000 barrels per day? Neither do I. This is a symbolic gesture at best, since it will have no actual effect on anything.

Brilliant job there, w.

And they blame it on Marilyn, and the heroin where were the PARENTS at?

Something I forgot about over the summer was the controversy over GTA: San Andreas. If for some reason you don't know, GTA:SA was an M(mature) rated game released last year, the latest in a long list of crazy-popular games by Rockstar about gangs, crime, sex, guns, and violence. The controversy came when a patch was released for the game by some dutch kid that allowed people to unlock a secret sex scene that the GTA developers removed from the game. Some of the code was left in, but it was impossible to reach without some serious 3rd-party programming.

So of course, Senators, namely Hillary Clinton (D, NY) latched onto the press it was getting and called for a hearing and inquiry into the game and the effect sex and violence in videogames may have on young people.

SO let's recap. Soldiers dying in Iraq, Valery Plame being violated by our Leaker in Chief, prisoners being tortured, gas prices climbing sky-high(we thought) and THIS is what our senators are spending their time on? The game was rated MATURE for a reason, and nobody under the age of 17 could even purchase the game because of the rating. So why does it matter what effect the game could have on 12-year-olds? They shouldn't be able to get ahold of the game in the first place.

First, parents need to take responsibility someday. Blame videogames, blame their friends, blame fucking chewing gum, but GOD FORBID we should ever doubt the parenting skill of people more interested in persuing their careers or playing online poker. Some parents aren't even ever home, either because they have to work long hours just to put food on the table, or they're irresponsible and want to go hit the clubs(Kevin Federline) instead of taking care of their kids. Parents are the most influencial elements in a child's life untill the day they move out; how can we pick apart something the child sees an hour or two a day without examining what brought them into this world in the first place?

And second, don't our fucking senators have something better to do? NOBODY ELECTED YOU TO DECIDE WHETHER VIDEOGAMES SHOULD HAVE A BETTER RATING SYSTEM! You wanna take a look at harmful effects in kid's lives? Kick the tabacco lobbyists out of Washington and start there, because cigarrettes are more harmful than GTA could ever aspire to be.

Video games don't cause violent behavior. Marilyn Manson doesn't cause violent behavior. The people who do those things and are actually violent were predisposed to BE violent before they ever picked up a controller or a NIN cd. Before we start blaming videogames, how about we hold the parents accountable. The schools, that make kids feel inadequate then PREPARE those students inadequately due to lack of funding. All the bad influences, like cigarrettes and alchohol and junkfood(remember, obescety is a HUGE problem in america right now) that receive more airtime on TV than any other kind of advertisement. Or how about the people they should be looking up to? The Great Teacher, Confucious, said that to create a great society filled with good people, the people must first have good, intelligent, morally-conscious leaders to set an example. We don't have those to any degree, so how can we expect their constituants to act any better? The kids need role models, and people starting wars, ignoring drowning cities, and wasting time with far less important issues are only furthering the decay our society is facing. The senate should be looking into THOSE things, not videogames. Way to have your priorities straight, guys.

Anyone wanna trade me a Ferarri for an old NES?

Kinda random, huh? I mean, nobody would make that trade. But www.cnn.com presented a story about a young man who has managed to trade up from a giant red paperclip towards his ultimate goal; get this, a HOUSE.

At first. I thought; not possible, no freakin way. But then you start reading. He starts small, trading his paperclip for something else, then something else, gradually building up value, until he gets up to "real" trading items; he trades his newly-acquired keg for a snowmobile, then up to an all-expenses paid trip to a skiing town, to an old van he trades to a band to haul their gear around in. THAT turns into studio time and a push for the artist to get signed; that is traded to a musician in Phoenix for her duplex.

Absolutely amazing story. It's great to see someone achieve his dream, and in such an unconventional way. With a little hard work, effort, and people skills, anything is possible.

I have to say this right now...suck on The Beatle's &^@#% all you want, Rolling Stone, but don't EVEN try to actually qualify your selections with any kind of rational arguements.

I'm referring to this, the Rolling Stone's top-500 albums of all time. As you can tell, I had a few thoughts of my own. First, is that 4 Beatle's albums in the top 10, 3 in the top 5, and the #1 overall album is just ridiculously bias. Look at the rest of the list; Nevermind, at 17, is the ONLY album made after 1985 to make the top 25. That's just stupid. Just as important and high-quality music has been made after the 70's; these selections have to be based on the creator's of the list's "Golden Era" of music falling in that 60's-70's range. Nevermind was just as important as Srg. Pepper, single-handedly destroyed an entire genre of music(hair metal), and ushering a genre into the public's consciousness who's influence is obvious in every popular rock band since. But Nirvana's best showing is at 17, and The Black Album, perhaps the greatest hard rock album ever, comes in at an INSULTING 252! How the hell can anyone justify that?

The biggest slight to me, however, is that Linkin Park has no entrants in the top 500. Hybrid Theory is one of the most amazing cd's ever made, blending genres like no CD has ever done before or since; metal, hip-hop, rap, electronica, alt-rock, and trance all meld into a symphany of sonic perfection. Need more proof of LP's skill? Listen to the Jay-Z/Linkin Park Collision Course CD; they further blend music in ways nobody has done nearly as well.

Oh yeah, Hybrid Theory sold 19 MILLION copies. That's absolute insanity, and almost twice as much as any Beatles album, and in FOURTY less years no less. That many people can't be wrong about what is good.

Let's compare lyrics, shall we? Linkin Park's breakout song, Crawling:

Discomfort, Endlessly has pulled itself upon me
Distracting, Reacting
Against my will I stand beside my own reflection
It's haunting, how I can't seem
To find myself again
My walls are closing in

Pure poetry. Now let's look at the Beatles. The breakthrough song they played on The Ed Sullivan Show;

I wanna hold your hand
I wanna hold your hand.

Wow. If I were six, I MIGHT consider that good writing. Maybe. Obviously, the standard's for quality have evolved mightily over the years; unfortunately, the critics haven't listened to any music since 1975. Here's some more food-for-thought; The Beatles kicked out their original drummer for, among other things, the fact that he wouldn't cut his hair to that ridiculous bowl-cut to conform with the rest of the band. CONFORM? FUCK THAT! Now look at LP; tell me who those guys are conforming with. The country has been built by individuals, and kicking someone out of your band because they wouldn't share your ugly haircut strikes me as a very communist thing to do.

The Beatles made pop music, and they made it well for their time. But at this point in time, how can anyone say they are NOT overrated? How can they even COMPARE to the greatest bands of the past 20 years? I haven't even tried to compare them to Nirvana, because it would be too easy; same with Metallica. Linkin Park, though, may be the most embarrassing comparison, not only because of their genre-blending and amazing lyrics, but also because they just do things the Beatles couldn't have dreamed of doing 50 years ago. They have an MC(Mr. Hahn) in the band, as well as TWO different lead vocalists; one, a rapper(Mike Shinoda), who also plays keyboard/piano/guitar/bass/ANYTHING, and the other, simply one of the best vocal talents in the world. As rumor has it, when LP was auditioning for a new lead singer, the auditioners were all in the auditorium listening to each other before they got their shot at singing on-stage. And upon hearing Chester sing, every single one of them just walked out, KNOWING they stood no chance. He provides a contrast with Shinoda that Lennon and McCartney couldn't have dreamed of. And, let's be honest; Lennon had a good voice for the way he used it, but Bennington can just sing, flat-out, no qualifications necesarry.

Linkin Park getting stiffed from TOP FIVE-HUNDRED consideration is an abboration, and just proves the list is completely bogus. Nirvana's Nevermind and Metallica's Black Album are also two of the greatest and most important albums in history, and both got severly disrespected just because they weren't made in the 60's. At least TRY not to be so obvious about it, Rolling Stone.

Statistics...your least-favorite college class now proves itself worthy

The Washington Post released a poll a few days ago that has compared statistics taken last week with responses to those same questions up to 30 years ago, and in between. These results demonstrate some interesting treands. Such as this, for instance:

1. Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president? Do you approve/disapprove strongly or somewhat?

             -------- Approve --------   ------- Disapprove ------    No
         NET   Strongly   Somewhat   NET   Somewhat   Strongly   opin.
4/9/06       38       20         18      60       13         47        1
3/5/06       41       24         17      58       14         44        1
1/26/06      42       25         18      56       14         42        2
1/8/06       46       29         17      52       13         39        2
12/18/05     47       29         17      52       12         40        1
11/2/05      39       20         18      60       13         47        1
10/29/05     39       22         17      58       13         45        3
9/11/05      42       27         15      57       12         45        1
8/28/05      45       27         18      53       12         41        2
6/26/05      48       27         21      51       11         40        1
6/5/05       48       27         21      52       14         38        1
4/24/05      47       25         22      50       13         38        3
3/13/05      50       31         19      48       11         37        3
1/31/05      50       34         15      45       11         34        5
1/16/05      52       33         19      46       11         35        2
12/19/04     48       27         21      49       12         38        2
10/20/04     50       30         20      46       11         35        4
10/17/04 LV  54       35         19      45        9         36        2
10/16/04 LV  54       35         19      44       10         34        2
10/15/04 LV  54       35         19      44       10         34        2
10/3/04  LV  53       36         17      46       11         34        1
9/26/04      50       33         18      45       13         32        5
9/8/04       52       35         17      43       11         32        5
8/29/04      50       31         19      47       13         34        3
8/1/04       47       28         18      49       13         36        5
7/25/04      50       32         19      47       13         34        3
7/11/04      48       31         17      50       11         39        2
6/20/04      47       30         17      51       13         39        1
5/23/04      47       31         17      50       14         36        3
4/18/04      51       33         18      47       13         34        1
3/7/04       50       32         18      48       12         36        2
2/11/04      50       30         21      47       14         34        2
1/18/04      58       35         24      40        9         30        2
12/21/03     59       39         21      38       15         23        3
12/14/03     57       37         20      39       10         29        5
12/7/03      53       32         21      40       13         27        7
11/16/03     57       34         23      39       11         28        4
10/29/03     56       30         26      42       13         29        2
10/13/03     53       33         20      43       13         29        4
9/30/03      54       34         20      44       15         29        2
9/13/03      58       35         23      40       14         27        2
9/7/03       56       34         22      41       13         28        4
8/11/03      59       37         22      37       14         23        4
7/10/03      59       35         24      38       13         25        3
6/22/03      68       45         23      29       11         18        4
4/30/03      71       50         22      26       17          9        3
4/16/03      74       52         22      23        9         14        3
4/9/03       77       58         19      20        6         14        4
4/3/03       71       54         16      25        7         19        4
3/23/03      68       NA         NA      27       NA         NA        4
3/20/03      67       NA         NA      28       NA         NA        5
3/2/03       62       38         23      35       13         22        4   
2/23/03      60       NA         NA      34       NA         NA        6   
2/9/03       64       42         21      34       14         20        3   
2/1/03       62       41         21      34       13         22        4   
1/28/03      62       43         19      36       13         23        2   
1/27/03      59       39         21      37       15         22        4   
1/20/03      59       36         23      38       16         22        2   
12/15/02     66       37         28      32       12         20        2   
11/4/02  LV  67       45         23      31       12         20        1   
11/3/02  LV  67       45         22      32       12         20        1   
11/2/02  LV  67       47         20      32        9         23        1   
10/27/02     67       39         28      29       13         16        4   
9/26/02      67       42         25      30       12         18        3   
9/8/02       71       42         28      27       12         15        3   
7/28/02      69       39         31      28       14         14        3   
7/15/02      72       42         31      25       12         13        2   
6/17/02      74       42         32      22        9         13        4   
6/9/02       77       41         36      20        9         11        3   
5/19/02      76       48         28      22        8         13        3   
4/21/02      78       47         31      20        9         10        2   
3/28/02      79       49         30      18        8         10        3   
3/10/02      82       52         30      16        9          7        2
1/27/02      83       56         27      14        7          7        3
12/19/01     86       64         22      12        6          6        2
11/27/01     89       69         21       9        4          5        1
11/6/01      89       65         24       9        5          4        2
10/9/01      92       76         16       6        3          3        1
9/27/01      90       70         20       6        3          3        4
9/13/01      86       63         23      12        5          6        2
9/9/01       55       26         29      41       20         22        3
8/12/01      61       28         33      31       14         17        8
7/30/01      59       28         30      38       17         22        3
6/3/01       55       27         28      40       18         22        6
4/22/01      63       33         30      32       16         16        5
3/25/01      58       NA         NA      33       NA         NA        8
2/25/01      55       NA         NA      23       NA         NA       22

What do these numbers reveal? Look at the dates; right after 9/11, bush's numbers hit an all-time high.
Kinda like an approval adrenalin. Then, the adrenalin died down, and more people haven't approved of
the job he's done than disapproved since April 2005; That's right, for one whole year more people have
disagreed with the way he's done his job than have agreed with him. A whole year. Here's something else
to look at.

The situation in Iraq

          -------- Approve --------   ------- Disapprove ------    No
          NET   Strongly   Somewhat   NET   Somewhat   Strongly   opin.
4/9/06        37       21        16       62       11         51        1
3/5/06        40       23        17       59       12         47        *
1/26/06       39       24        15       60       10         50        1
12/18/05      46       31        15       53       10         43        1
11/2/05       36       20        15       64       13         51        1
9/11/05       38       NA        NA       62       NA         NA        1
8/28/05       42       28        14       57       11         46        1
6/26/05       43       25        18       56       12         44        1
6/5/05        41       NA        NA       58       NA         NA        1
4/24/05       42                          56                            2
3/13/05       39                          57                            4
1/16/05       40                          58                            2
12/19/04      42                          57                            1
9/26/04 RV    47                          50                            3
8/29/04 RV    47                          51                            2
7/25/04       45                          53                            2
6/20/04       44                          55                            2
5/23/04       40                          58                            2                      
4/18/04       45                          54                            1
3/7/04        46                          53                            1
2/11/04       47                          52                            1
1/18/04       55                          42                            2 
12/21/03      60                          39                            2
12/14/03      58                          38                            4             
11/16/03      48                          48                            4             
10/29/03      47                          51                            2             
10/13/03      51                          47                            2             
9/29/03       50                          47                            3             
9/13/03       52                          46                            2             
9/7/03        49                          47                            4             
8/24/03       56                          37                            7             
8/11/03       56                          41                            3             
7/10/03       58                          41                            2             
6/22/03       67                          30                            2             
4/30/03       75        "         "       22        "          "        2             
3/27/03*      69                          26                            5             
3/23/03       71                          26                            3             
3/20/03       65                          29                            5             
3/17/03       64                          29                            7    
3/9/03        55                          38                            8     
2/23/03       55                          39                            6     
2/9/03        61                          37                            2     
2/5/03        61                          32                            7     
2/1/03        61                          35                            3     
1/28/03       58                          38                            4     
1/27/03       57                          40                            3     
1/20/03       50                          46                            4     
12/15/02      58                          37                            5     
11/4/02  LV   56                          40                            4     
11/3/02  LV   57                          40                            4     
11/2/02  LV   56                          41                            3     
10/27/02      57                          38                            5     
9/26/02       58                          39                            3     
9/14/02       65                          31                            4     
8/29/02       52        "         "       36        "          "       12   

Again, we were gun-ho at the beginning; then common sense kicked in and the
american people came to their senses. The public hasn't approved of the way
bush has handled Iraq in over a year. Here's another chunk of information to
process.


 (and 5) If the election for the U.S. House of Representatives in
November 2006 were being held today, would you vote for (the Democratic
candidate) or (the Republican candidate) in your congressional
district? (IF OTHER, NEITHER, DK, REF) Would you lean toward the
(Democratic candidate) or toward the (Republican candidate)? Net Leaned Vote:

               Dem      Rep      Other     Neither     Will not      No
               cand.    cand.    (vol.)    (vol.)     vote (vol.)   opin.
4/9/06   RV      55       40        *          2           *           3        
     All        54       40        *          2           1           4        
1/26/06  RV      54       38        1          3           1           5
     All        55       36        1          3           1           4
12/18/05 RV      51       41        1          3           1           4
     All        50       41        1          3           1           4
11/2/05  RV      52       37        1          4           2           6
     All        53       36        1          3           2           5
11/4/02  LV      48       48        1          1           0           2
11/3/02  LV      48       48        *          1           0           2
11/2/02  LV      50       49        *          1           0           2
10/27/02 LV      47       49        1          1           0           3
9/26/02  LV      49       47        1          2           0           2
     RV         47       44        2          3           2           3
     All        46       42        2          2           5           3
7/15/02  RV      47       46        1          1           1           4

     All        47       45        1          1           1           4  

LOL. To be fair, the poll before 7/15/02 was actually in favor of republicans
by 7 points. From the looks of it, since 1981, the republicans have been favored
in the polls 5 whole times.

I'll end the statistical bombardment with this chunk.
Which political party, the (Democrats) or the (Republicans), do you trust to do a better job handling (ITEM)?  

Democrats Republicans (vol.) (vol.) op.

a. The situation in Iraq         49          42         1        6       2
b. Prescription benefits
for the elderly                  59          31         1        5       5
c. The economy                   49          43         1        4       3
d. Immigration issues            50          38         1        7       4
e. The U.S. campaign
against terrorism                46          45         1        6       1
f. Health care                   61          29         *        6       3
g. Corruption in Washington      52          27         2       18       2

Democrats in the clean sweep, although the terrorism issue falls within the margin
of error. Kinda sad though, considering democrats have traditionally NEVER been
able to win anything on national security.

"Stay the course"? FUCK OFF WITH YOUR STUPID RHETORIC AND TALKING POINTS!

A few things happening today. For starters, a hilrious situation occurred on the floor of the Senate. Senator Kerry gave a speech on Iraq, and his stance should be pretty obvious. His speech was followed by Senator Wayne Allard (R-CO), who came out and basically said Kerry was wishy-washy about the "war", and:

"seemed to have learned the lessons of 9/11 when he warned against a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq in the past, but as the political winds have changed, he seems to have forgotten those lessons anew. Republicans will never forget the lessons of 9/11 and will continue to support the President's efforts to bring peace and stability to Iraq. “I am supporting the President because he is staying the course. He has a plan in Iraq. He is putting the plan to work. I think that in the long run he is going to make a difference. We are going to have a better world because of his efforts. We are going to have a more stable Middle East, and this President will truly go down in history as a great leader.”

Being a member of the ultra-gutsy republican party, he waited until Senator Kerry had left for a committee meeting before issuing this response. Kerry was defended by Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), who decided to remind his spineless counterpart that he and Kerry are both decorated veterans, and since you didn't serve in any wars, you have no credibility on this issue. Also,

"the administration is simply ignoring reality. How in the world can the Commander-in-Chief, President Bush, be satisfied with the situation in Iraq? It is chaotic. It is near a civil war. The definition of a 'civil war'; is that people within the same country are fighting one another. My gosh, it could not be clearer."

But that's not all. Kerry, hearing about the attack on his character during the meeting, leaves it to make his response. And what a response it was.

“A little while ago--I was not here, I was at a hearing of the Finance Committee--I am informed that the Senator from Colorado, Mr. Allard, came to the floor to attack my position on Iraq, which is fine by me, but also I think somewhat questionable with respect to the rules and the ethics of the Senate to attack me personally about my motives with respect to a position I have taken. The Senator from Colorado suggested that ‘we see an individual who is being spun in the political winds.’

“Let me make it clear to the Senator from Colorado, and anybody else who wants to debate Iraq, that when it comes to issues of war and peace and of young Americans dying, nobody spins me, period.

“I am not going to listen to the Senator from Colorado or anyone else question my motives when young Americans are dying on a daily basis or losing their limbs because Iraqi politicians won't form a government from an election that they held in December. That is inexcusable.

“Let me ask the Senator from Colorado: Is it OK by him that young Americans are dying right now while politicians in Baghdad are frittering away their time and squandering the opportunity our soldiers fought to give them? Does he think that is a plan that is working? Does he think that is serving the needs of the American military?

“Don't come to the floor of the Senate and try to suggest to me that somehow when we come up with a plan to protect our troops and to make America stronger we are somehow making their life more miserable. Ask the troops. Seventy percent of the troops who were polled in Iraq said they thought next year we ought to be able to withdraw. Those are our troops talking to us.

This is the guy that republicans attacked 2 years ago for being soft, wishy-washy, and unable to be decisive. He comes out and LAYS DOWN THE FUCKING LAW! Not only does he defend himself, but also takes a shot at the republican-controlled congress and president. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this, but it is apparently necessary to do so again. And I know Senator Kerry would agree with me here. When "Staying the course" means following a flawed and illegal plan, one that has cost us 2,356 US soldiers lives, "Staying the course" ceases to be a virtue, and becomes pigheaded, stubborn, and reckless. "Staying the course" isn't a good thing when it KILLS AMERICANS, and whenever I hear some millionaire politician sitting safely in his office, talking about "Staying the course", it makes me absolutely sick. What the hell does Senator Tool(R-Anywhere) know about sacrifice? I guarantee you, if his kid was on the front lines, he wouldn't be preaching this rhetoric over-and-over.

Here's a Thought... Calling for america to "Stay the course" in Iraq is tantamount to slaughtering american citizens; every day we stay means we will be leaving more american corpses behind. Politicians telling us we need to "Stay the course" means more and more americans are dying. And for what? What the fuck have we accomplished? The country has been demolished, we DIDNT find any nukes are bioweapons, we DIDNT find Osama, and 4 months after their much-heralded "elections", the Iraqi's have refused to even FORM their freakin government. So what good are the deaths of all those soldiers serving? None. Hell, it isn't even a "sacrifice"; think about it. Sacrifice implies chosing to give your life for a higher cause. How many soldiers in Iraq chose to die for the situation at hand? NONE. And politicians telling america to "Stay the course" are basically just telling our soldiers to stay in Iraq and die. That's the correct translation. So every time we hear "Stay the course" from now on, make the connection. "Stay the course" = Soldiers dying for no reason, and a government(two, really) that doesn't even appreciate what they're doing for them(Iraq's for not actually forming their government, and the republicans for using the image of their deaths for their own selfish political purposes).
Stay the course= Soldiers dying.
Is that really the plan we should be following?

South Park vs. The Simpsons

Hilarious episode of South Park tonight, featuring a showdown between Cartman and Bart Simpson. They were both arguing over which should go into the Fox office to get Family guy pulled off the air. Bart says "I'm a pretty bad kid."
Cartman responds, "What's the worst thing you've done?"
Bart, "I stole the head off a statue once."
Cartman just looks at him, stupified, then responds, "Wow, that's pretty hardcore. That's kinda like the time I didn't like this kid, so I ground up his parents into chili and fed it to him."
Bart's jaw hits the ground. He then leaves the building.

Winner, South Park. :)

DONT give us your tired. your hungry, or your poor

I guess there's this whole "Illegal immigration" debate thing going on. Well, there would be if congress hadn't decided they needed a two-week break for easter with so much work left to do. Some people's proposed "solutions" to illegal immigration, however, are amusing, interesting, or just straight stupid.

For example, building a fence. Oh yeah, a fence along a 700-mile border. What idiots actually thought that would work? Let's look at the most famous example of a wall being used to keep outsiders out, shall we? The great wall of China. How well did that work out? It didnt, because building walls hasn't worked since the dark ages. It's just dumb to think a lump of stone will keep anyone out.

Doubling the border patrol? Still stupid. Remember, it's already BEEN doubled, and we still have this "problem".

Someone on Shoutwire proposed kicking them all out, then making them come back through and making them citizens. WOW. Tell you what buddy, why don't we put YOU in charge of rounding up 12 million people and driving them back down to mexico. have fun with that.

What do I think we should do?

This country was built on the backs of immigrants, doing the labor other americans didn't want to do. I don't see any harm in letting them stay, on a few conditions. One, they all pass citizenship tests; you wanna live in america, learn it's history and current situation. Two, pay normal taxes; no more under-the-table nonsense, and HUGE fines for anyone who pays that way.

That's all. Is that such a difficult concept? Make them pass a test and pay taxes just like everyone else, then go back to picking fruit or working in kitchens or whatever else they are doing to support their impovershed families back in latin america; like there aren't enough menial jobs to go around. It isn't as if they are taking jobs in engineering or nursing, jobs taht regular americans are fighting for.

This country was founded by people leaving their homes and looking for a better life. It was build on the backs of irish and african "immigrants" who did the work for little or no money. And what happened? Was it the downfall of america? No. They became the JFKs and MLKs. Everyone has something to contribute to america, so why not let them stay, make them citizens, and give them the opportunity to make a good life for themselves and their families. That IS the american dream, after all.

Mirror, Mirror, on the wall, who is the most corrupt of them all

Was there ever really any doubt that Jack Abramoff was a badguy? check out this picture of him Come on; black trenchcoat, black tophat, plump from the comforts of power and money; how could anyone have associated with this guy and then claim they had no idea or weren't influenced by him?

MSNBC has an article up today about how the midterm election in '94 is scarily similar to the political situation the republicans are running into now. in 1994, the democrats had sole control of the government, with majorities in both the house and senate. They had control of both legislative branches for an extended period, had basically neutralized the republican's ability to even participate in governing, and were struck down with corruption and finance scandal. This is when Newt Gingrich and Tom DeLay, among others, spearheaded a grassroots-style campaign to retake Washington based on their "Contract With America", a 10-point plan to shrink the government, hold politicians responsible, excise corruption caused by the democrats who had been in power way too long, balance the budget, and reduce the deficit. And it worked; they gained an amazing 50 seats in the house, and enough to take the senate as well, and proceeded to make good on their campaign promises in equally impressive fashion.

My, how the mighty have fallen

April, 2006: Tom DeLay, the most powerful congressman in Washington, removes his name from the re-election plans of the GOP amid two of his senior aids committing to a plea bargain in relation to the massive corruption and money-laundering scandel revolving around him. Duke Cunningham, another high-ranking republican representative, resigned last year after pleading guilty in his own corruption scandal. And now, republican senator Conrad Burns is facing down his own demons; he recieved more money from Abramoff than any other government official, and has seen his lead over his democratic opponent in his re-election bid drop from 15 points to just 6, and NOW he is facing down another republican candidate as well; Bob Keenan, former State Senate leader, is also planning on running after being fed-up with Burns and his representation of the state and the shame he has brought.

1994: 3 top democrats step down amid corruption scandals, and the democrats lose both the house and senate to reform-minded republicans.

2006: 2 top republicans step down amid corruption scandals, with midterm elections only months away.

The big difference here is president Clinton vs. president bush. Clinton was semi-successful, reducing the federal deficit and proposing a healthcare plan that would have been a great boon to the American people. bush, on the other hand, has sent us to war under false pretenses, absolutely failed the people of New Orleans after hurricane Katrina, and violated our civil rights and condoned torture with no remorse or signs of stopping.

And Clinton's democrats STILL managed to lose control of congress. Does this bode well for bush's republicans? Let's ask Newt Gingrich, master engineer of the grassroot republican effort in taking back congress from the corrupt democrats.


"(Republicans) are seen by the country as being in charge of a government that can't function," he said. "We could lose control this fall." He states on his website, newt.org.
He cited a series of blunders under Republican rule, from failures in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina to mismanagement of the war in Iraq. He said the immigration bill passed by his former colleagues in the House of Representatives is unrealistic and too harsh toward undocumented immigrants, called congressional efforts to regulate lobbying "much too weak" and said the government has squandered billions of dollars in Iraq. Gingrich said Republicans have grown too comfortable in power and lost the grass-roots, outside-the-Beltway attitude that once fed their hunger to downsize the government.

The guy is right on every account. What I find most interesting, though, are his thoughts on the immigration issue, considering the massive protests occurring right now. I was in LA this spring break and saw the 500,000 man-march through the city. Today, over 100,000 are marching in Texas, with 5 more protests planned for later today. What does Newt say about the prospect of a corrupt, ineffective congress solving this issue?

"I have no faith that the (current) United States government can run a temporary-worker program without having so much corruption and bureaucracy and red tape that it will rapidly collapse of its own weight,'' he said. ``... This is a bureaucracy which in 2004 did not fine a single American business for hiring 11 million people illegally.''

That guy just sees to the heart of the issues. republicans gained power based on campaign promises of reducing the government, spending, deficit, and corruption. Now look what has happened; they are engulfed in those same issues.

Here's a Thought... Would anyone really be suprised if the republicans lost both congressional houses? The phrase "History repeats itself" has been proven true time and time again, and history has proven that corrupt congresses do not last against focused opposition. democrats began their campaign bids months ago with their Rubber Stamp stunts and Feingold and Murta's strong stands against the president himself. The corruption scandal, leak trial of Scooter Libby, and immigration bill failures so far are threatening to consume their very party in flames of obscurity, treason, and malfeasance, and cause the largest political shake-up that the country has seen in over a decade. And considering the route our country has been travelling down, is there any doubt that would be a good thing?

Losing my Religion

Shoutwire is awesome. Here's a short article I'd like to talk about.

I love religion, I really do. Especially the occidental ones; they hold themselves to be morally superior to everyone else, when their history says otherwise.

The first thing I take issue with is his rational behind what being an atheist or agnostic is. You don't need to have scoured the universe and eliminated the possibility of their being a God to be atheist. Dictionary.com defines "Atheist" as "One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods." One no more needs concrete evidence to claim disbelief as Christians or Muslims need concrete proof to BELIEVE God exists. It isn't about evidence or proof; it's about experience and that gut feeling, because when it comes to religion, nothing is ever proven to be fact. This part REALLY cracks me up though;

From the years of Apologetics classes I have taken I can say to you that atheism means that one went the length of the universe and one found no presence of God. This, by today’s means, would be impossible to accomplish. One cannot completely eliminate God, because one has no evidence that He does not exist.

So because we haven't searched every inch of the universe we can't eliminate God? Sounds like backwards logic to me, because from all the exploration we've done, we've never seen any actual signs of God, either. Heaven and Hell aren't places that we've ever seen. Atheists have no need to PROVE God doesn't exist, because evidence isn't necessarily the foundation for their disbelief. You can tell when your arguement is weak when you start asking people to prove you wrong, instead of proving yourself right. As for agnosticism, Dictionary.com had this to say;

1. 1. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
   2. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

To be agnostic is to be honest with one's self; that there is no actual proof of God, but not wanting to eliminate the possibility of it existing. Agnosticism isn's a religion, either: the difference between a belief and a religion is that a belief is a mallable idea; religion is rules, order, and hierarchy regulating the way in which one can or should practice those beliefs. There is no "Church" for agnostics, for obvious reasons (because having a church based around NOT believing in a God is just silly), so how can it be said to be a religion? Religion, by definition, requires believing in a diety, and agnostics don't necessarily.

To say that without religion there would be chaos is the single stupidest thing I have ever heard. Religion is the single thing that keeps people in check these days and by far the only thing keeping us from having absolutely no morals.

Oh wow. Not only is his writing contradictory in saying that the world without religion would be chaos is stupid, but then that be believes it, it just isnt true. Religion doesn't keep anything in check, the governments and laws of the world do. There are plenty of people who don't believe in any religion at all; do you see them all running around gunning people down and robbing liquor stores? No. And do we really need to talk about morals in religion? I believe that there is a lot of good morals to be learned in any of the world's religions, but considering the actions of Christianity in the past, how could they EVER claim to have the moral highground? One interesting point was made to me when I was down in LA visiting some family last week; someone told me that the people who claim to be religious and then commit those sins, "Aren;t real Christians." That sure sounds like an easy way to not have to take the blame for anything that is inspired by your religions. I'm pretty sure the Popes are real christians, and THEY sactioned and planned the Crusades and Inquisitions, which spanned the course of a milennium. So were they not "real christians"? The logic is just perposterous.

Let us “imagine no religion.” The big bang is true and we evolved from animals. That makes humans simply animals, chemically structured like any other, and nothing more. Animals fight for territory, of course not with nuclear weapons, although they would use them if they had the mental capacity to do so. I know it sounds funny, but imagine what a lion would do if he could just dispose of a competitor by merely pulling a trigger. Animals do not believe in religion (or else it's simply impossible) yet there are violent animals, which nonbelievers claim we might have evolved from. So wouldn’t that mean that, even without religion, there would be war?

“Religious crackpots” have a large following (the vast majority of the world believe in some type of organized religion) and these crackpots have the primary goal of installing good morals into their followers; take away these morals and you have a society that is bent on getting their way and they have nothing to stop them. To put it bluntly, the world would be in total anarchy - survival of the fittest (to the extreme), if you will. Sure, some empires would prosper and would know how to keep things together, but what about the other billions of people with nothing to go by and no basic guidelines telling them how to be a good person?

I will go as far as saying this: the day this world does not abide by religion will be the day we are overrun with agnostics and supposed “atheists.” I believe a more suitable line would be, "Imagine total destruction."

LOL. Evolution IS real, you don't have to imagine anything. I hate when people want to pretend something that has no scientific backing is real, but then ignore/mock scientifically proven concepts. But to say we are basically just animals is stupid; the whole point of evolution is that we have become something much, much more.

A Lion wouldn't pull the trigger on a nuke if he had the mental capacity, because Lions don't fight wars based on concepts or ideas; all they do is hunt and defend their hunting territory. What good would wiping out the entire landscape they hunt on do them? And as for the whole "animals are violent and don't believe in religion, so without religion we would just be violent ourselves" That is the dumbest logic I have ever heard. Animals don't have the mental capacity to form such complex thoughts. How could anyone claim with a straight face that religion makes people less violent? 9/11, anyone? We have been led into a "war" in Iraq by a man who is a devout Christian, which has led to the death of over 2,000 american soldiers and unknown numbers or Iraqi and civilian casualties. The Catholic church annihilated the Muslims and Jews during the Crusades, THEN backstabbed their Roman allies and burned Constantinople to the ground. That is this person's idea of the non-violence religion teaches people? The world does not abide by religion; we are given freedom FROM religion, as granted by the constitution. And where has that led us? Not to total anarchy or destruction; to being the most powerful and important nation in the history of the world. People learn morals from all sorts of places, and many don't go to church on Sundays. So how does one explain that? According to this guy's theory, he couldn't, because the only place people learn good morals is from their religion. Thomas Jefferson, one of the greatest presidents in our nation's history, was not religious at all, and DEFINED the freedom from religion. So by this theory, he would be an immoral beast, leading us to war and bloodshed and anarchy. What really happened? He authored the Declaration of Independence, freeing us from the monarchy of a foreign nation, purchased 1/3 of the land that is now the United States, and authorized the Lewis and Clark expedition, which lead to manifest destiny and the total colonization of the continental U.S.

Wow, what an animal. How uncivilized. To say people without religion are basically amoral animals is an insult to every atheist, agnostic, and other non-believer; way to take the high-road you claim to live on based on your belief in something you cannot possibly prove. Real impressive. Someone should point out to me all the good, PROVABLE things that religion has done for human society, because from what I've seen, the damage dealt by the fanatics it creates FAR outweighs the hypothetical positive effects.