Demonstrations of Idiocy...
All over the country today, demonstrations will be held to protest the occupation of Iraq. The majority of the people involved in these demonstrations will be the seriously retarded denizens of the colleges, the aging hippies, those that will use the events to advance unrelated agendas (I expect the homosexuals to be out in force), the Bush haters, the slackers and the truly-disintertested-but-there-to-hook-up-with-hippie-chicks.

The organizers of these protests claim that he war in Iraq was illegal and immoral, and cite the same, tired reasons for their disconnected logic. Knocking them down one at a time:

a) We went to war for oil: considering the price of oil hit near $60 a barrel this week, I'm wondering where all this free, illegally-gained oil actually is. Californians are now paying above $3 for a gallon of gas, and the rest of us are approaching $2.50. Congress has allowed for the exploration of and drilling for oil in the ANWR. World energy prices are skyrocketing due to increased demand and lower supplies, mainly caused by OPEC's continued manipulation of the market. if the United States is now swimming in oil, I have yet to see it.

b) Saddam Hussein posed no threat to the United States - Well, neither did Slobodan Milosevic. Neither did General Aidid in Somalia. Neither did the genocide in Rwanda, the sectarian turmoil in Northern Ireland, the slaughter of innocents in the Ivory Coast. Yet, the same people who now claim qualifications to assess threats to national security, where protesting then that the United States either did nothing or should have done more to solve those problems where no clear national interest actually lay. Apparently, we should only use power in the interests of France, not in our own. Saddam Hussein was a threat to national security here: he, himself, might not have launched a missle at us or personally highjacked an airliner, but he was capable of funneling arms, money and WMD's to surrogates. In fact, he was. Palesinian terrosists were receiving cash payments from him. European intelligence agencies recorded meetings between Iraqi agents and terrorist groups. Saddam had used WMD on several occasions: ask the Iranians and Kurds, and had the means to deliver them outside of his borders: ask the Saudis, Kuwaitis and Israelis, all once on the receiving end of Scuds.

c) There were no WMD's in Iraq - Au contraire, but there were --- UN Weapons inspectors found them. The UN helped destroy some of them. There was no way of knowing if they were all destroyed, however, and the subsequent actions of the the Iraqi government, it's scientists, the United Nations Inspectors and intelligence services all over the planet, made it clear that until it could be positively ascertained that Iraq was WMD-free that no one should sleep soundly. In the aftermath of the invasion two years ago, coalition forces were still finding artillery shells, rockets and remote-controlled airplanes that contained, or were designed to deliver, WMD's. The fact that, up until this time, no missile, bomb, or other contrivance of war has been found loaded to the gills with VX, for example, it doesn't automatically follow that such things do not still exist somewhere. They just haven't been found yet.

d) the War is Illegal: Again, there were 17 seperate UN resolutions authroizing the United Sates to act militarily in Iraq. Iraq was in violation of all 17. Several members of the Security Council were, in fact, themselves, complicit in helping the former regime circumvent or violate the UN's own resolutions. The United States Congress authorized the use of force against Iraq and appropriated funds for the invasion and subsequent rebuilding effort. Thirty-plus nations initially joined the United States in Iraq, which was more than twice the number that fought under UN colors in Korea. I gather that thirty-plus nations are also acting illegally, but it seems none of them will be mentioned during the protests.

So march all you want. Make up all the bullshit excuses you want for not doing your part to protect the country. Contrive and spread all the propaganda your tiny minds can conceive. The fcat is that no one is really listening to you and you're preaching to the choir anyway: the same people who will join you are the same people who would ask "What did I do to cause this?" when the next airliner hits the Sears Tower or when they get anthrax in the mail. In other words, you're preaching to those who would expect to be given all the fruits of Western Civilization without lifting a finger to get it for themselves or even to make any sort of positive contribution. You know, the kind of people who are responsible for having instructions put on shampoo bottles or directions on a can of soup for it's proper use -- in other words, the braindead, the lazy and the folks who want to be mollycoddled from cradle to grave.

Ffteen hundred Americans have given their lives in Iraq to do three, extraodrinary things: travel half-way around the world in order to provide a shield behind which you exercise your right to bleat like sheep, created conditions where fledgling democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan may incubate, and finally, brought something resembling actual civilization to an area of the world where such things were typically considered bad because they had a Western taint.

You are really marching for selfish reasons (i.e. you don't want to have to actually go to war to foster these things, only reap the benefits).

As for the calls that the money being spent in the Middle East can easily be of more use here, I remind you that if given $80 billion, the Department of Education will promptly lose it. The Secretary for Housing and Urban Development would simply use it to create more "empowerment zones" which are simply ghettos with a different name. Just because the money would be put to "better uses" by your ilk does not guarentee that your ideas are any better.

Seriously Misplaced Priorities...
Re Terri Shiavo: I will admit to not having paid much attention to this stuff, but the last two weeks have been nearly wall-to-wall Terri coverage on the news, in between Michael Jackson, Jessica Lundsford (R.I.P Little One, may God comfort you!) and Scott Peterson.

From where I sit, it all brings up serious questions about the priorities and utility vis-a-vis the courts in this country.

In the case of Terri Shiavo, here we have a woman who has been in a vegetative state for several years. She does not function normally, being unable to swallow and thus feed herself, probably cannot communicate with those around her, and for all I know, is completely unaware of her condition and surroundings. But, and this is important --- she is still alive.

And this seems to be a problem for her husband, who from what I can gather, was once devoted to her care and maintenance, until the malpractice suit paid off. Now he's got himself a new woman and a gaggle of children, and wants to see Terri's life support apparatus disconnected. Apparently, this is cheaper than a divorce. Now, I don't not know all of the details, but it does seem rather convenient that seven years into her coma or whatever it is, the husband suddenly remembers that Terri told him not to take extraordinary measures or somesuch to prolong her life in this situation. Also coveniently, these insturctions were never written down, and apparently he's the only one who can verify that she ever said any such thing. Since Terri, barring a miracle, will never be able to testify to that point on her own, this premise stinks on ice.

However, a court in Florida seems more than willing to see things the husband's way, and a judge has ordered that the feeding tube be removed. This has happened several times in the past, and every time, the courts have seen fit to reverse such rulings. From what I have been able to gather, this is not the only judge that has ordered that Terri be starved to death, which makes it look to me that the husband, in his desperation to kill off his wife, has been shopping for judges for several years --- and keeps finding ones that see things his way. I'll bet a dollar to a doughnut that these same judges would be opposed to the death penalty for a violent murderer and possibly have handed out heavy-handed sentences to animal abusers, but seem to have no problem with killing off an innocent person who just happens to have been seriously injured and who might one day be rehabilitated. I'm not a neurologist, but the possibility seems to exist that perhaps, one day, Terri just might snap out of it, or with effort, be made somewhat functional again.

Vis-a-vis Michael Jackson, the courts have been all over the map on his activities and proclivities and still we go through the motions of having a trial. As far as I'm concerned, one allegation might be someone with an axe to grind. Two allegations raise eyebrows. Mike is on his fourth or fifth allegation. At what point do we begin to realize that, perhaps, these allegations are true? I realize that there is a burden of proof and people are innocent until proven otherwise and all of that other legal bullshit, but either Michael is guilty or he's the unluckiest sonofabitch on the planet. In his case, instead of a trial, we're treated to a circus and a PR offensive: this trial is no longer about law, facts and evidence, it's about lawyers making each other's witnesses look bad. Each day we hear about the prosecution scoring a point, only to have the defense score one of it's own, and from what I can tell, we're getting no closer to the truth: is Michael Jackson molesting children? Is he a pedophile who needs to be locked away for the safety of society? Or is all of this courtroom manuevering just a serious waste of time?

Jessica Lunsford has been murdered, and God knows whatever else happened to her. The perp is a convicted sex offender whom the courts deemed safe to be released from prison. Mistake number one. The perpetrator, John Couey, was listed in a Florida sex offender directory and suppposed to be supervised in some way, but somehow, he managed to not be where he was supposed to be and then fled the jurisdiction, finally being arrested in Georgia. Mistake number two. How the courts in Florida can debate the deliberate starving to death of an innocent woman and let a convicted (24 arrests), persistent offender walk the streets in order to prey upon little grils is beyond me.

We won't even get into Peterson's situation.

The courts are supposed to protect us, they are supposed to enforce the law, as it is written. Instead, we get courts packed to the gills with judges who are willing to use their discretion to advance some seriously demented agendas: that inconveniently ill people can be killed, that the obviously guilty can continue to buy their way out of justice, that criminals have rights after being convicted and are entitled to walk around despite the fact that they will offend again. Add this to recent court rulings about everything under the sun from the Ten Commandments to Gay Marriage to Immigration problems and it's hard to see just what utility the courts are serving in this day and age. It certainly is not to uphold the law with any kind of common sense or decency, or to protect the civil society in which we're supposed to be living in.

For what it's worth, here's my opinion:

-Terri's husband should be taken out and shot. The judge(s) who fell for his seemingly transparent recollection of Terri's will not to be saved should be drawn and quartered, on Pay-per-view.

- Michael Jackson is as guilty as all sin, it's been obvious for a decade now, and the legal manuevering should cease and the judge in that case should set himself towards enforcing the law.

- John Couey should be made to suffer a slow, agonizing death, peferably something to do with honey and a nest of fire ants. All sex offenders should be locked away forever, to hell with civil rights in their case. I'd return to the ancient Roman practice of making human candles out of them, which would put a dent in the country's energy problems.

- Scott Peterson should have been executed as soon as the guilty verdict came in. Barring some atomic bomb-like evidence (and it appears that none will be forthcoming, the man was caught dead to rights), screw the appeal process. We should stop looking at criminals as victims of circumstance and start looking at them as they are: seriously demented people who pose a danger to the rest of us.

Congress on Steroids...
I watched the farce that was the Congressional Hearing on Steroid Use (or whatever they're calling it) on television, and came to several, familiar conclusions.

1. Professional athletes live on a different planet than the rest of us - I saw Jose Canseco beg for immunity, Mark McGuire, for all intents and purposes, took the Fifth, and Sammy Sosa pretended he didn't speak English when the questions got too specific. Any average citizen dragged before a Congressional committe would not have gotten away with what these guys have; they took illegal substances to acquire fame, and then use that fame to shield themselves from the consequences of their actions. McGuire was the worst. His repeated mantra of "I'm not here to talk about the past" (i.e. I'm guilty as hell, but don't expect me to fess up -- I don't have to) was nauseating. Jose Canseco is still the slimy piece of shyte he's always been, and you know he only agreed to show up because he has to push a book. Even when he was confronted with the contradictions in his book, such as the fact that he claims steroids are fine and here to stay, contrasted with his "do as I say, not as I do" spiel, he came off as someone who feels that he is above the rules.

2. Congressmen live on different planet than the rest of us - One only had to look at the Mouse of the House, Henry Waxman (Idiot-California) and his asshole buddy, Bernie Sanders (Communist-Vermont), and the absolute glee they both displayed at being in front of a TV camera, to know it. Bernie took the opportunity to rail about a healthcare "crisis" in this country, which was totally unrelated to what the purpose of the hearing was. Waxman continued his usual practice of speaking from his rectum. This is another instance of Congress deciding it has a right to stick it's colelctive nose under any goddamn tent flap it wishes to. Baseball will not be cleaned up by Congressional action. Marijuana and cocaine are against the law, people in everyday life are randomly tested everyday, and still people use marijuana and cocaine. Laws will do nothing to fix this problem --- the marketplace must correct itself, once again. If baseball were serious about this issue, then players who were caught using steriods would not only be suspended, they would lose serious money, not these measly fines that Bud Selig bandied about as proof positive he's being tough. In this instance, the owners and the baseball folks must realize that many people do, in fact, care about the integrity of the game. Once that integrity is violated, people begin to stay away. Once star athletes who draw the crowds tot he stadium every day start dropping like flies because of suspensions, people will stay away in droves. At that point, the owners will get serious before they lose fans and, more importantly to them, money.

3. Some people still refuse to take responsibility for their actions - this was evident in every way from McGuire refusing to fess up, to Canseco pretending that he didn't start this whole brouhaha and Selig pretending that he is the Commissioner. However, the best and worst example of not taking personal responsibility were the parents of the youngsters who died because of steroid use. Their responsibility as parents was to ensure their children were okay. If, for example, your 15 year old bulks up from 100 pounds to a hefty 180 in a short period of time, you should realize something is up. When your typically mild-mannered child begins to act out in rage unexpectedly, the red flag has been raised. However, in the society we live in we always find someone else to blame. In this case, baseball players caused these kids to do nasty things to their bodies that eventually killed them, and their parents did not notice or did nothing until it was too late. Granted, these players are role models, but they are not a substitute for interested, involved, loving parents. I feel bad that they lost their children, but at some point, you have to take the responsibility of finding out what your kids are up to.Your son is not dead because Jose Canseco took steroids -- he's dead because he took steroids and you didn't do anything about it. Blaming McGuire and Canseco may ease your conscience, but it doesn't erase the fact that you failed as parents.

4. Steroid use is merely an aspect of technology - what I mean by this is simply that science continues to advance, in all aspects of human endeavor, and occasionally, that technology is going to be misused. Steroids were intended to help people with specific, physical maladies, and it's the side effects (boost in testosterone, muscle bulk, increased strength, etc) that were the payoff in this particular misuse of the medications. Technology has affected sports in almost every way imaginable: we have better, stronger materials for our equipment, althletes have access to more information on nutrition and strength training than ever before. Physics has been applied to every aspect of sport from the action of a curveball to the ergonomics of a running shoe. Sporting implements that used to be made of natural materials such as wood and leather have given way to polycarbons and advanced plastics. Newer techniques of production and design have made equipment more effective than ever. How many home runs do you think Hank Aaron would have hit if his bats had been designed on a computer capable of taking the physics of the swing and contact with the ball into account? If he'd had the access to nutritionists, personal trainers and sports medicine specialists would he have played into his 40's, like Barry Bonds is set to do? An intersting point was made by Arnold Schwartzenegger the other night on Hardball: how would a pole vaulter of 50 years ago fared with today's polycarbonite pole that flexes and literally flings the vaulter over the bar as opposed to the old-fashioned wooden poles with very little give? The point is that science enters into our daily lives on every level and that today steroids are the enemy while tomorrow it might be genetic engineering.

5. The Players have the owners over a barrel and they know it - Listening to the folks from MLB try to explain their non-policy policy yesterday, it became obvious that the point of collective bargaining for the players is to protect their own asses, especially when ti comes to the use and distribution of illicit substances. The fines and penalties for drug use outlined yesterday were atrocious and some Congressmen were actually smart enough to notice. Some even did the math to the extent that they realized the fines and suspensions were little more than nuisances to a guy who makes several million dollars a year. The players could never get away with negotiating this good a deal for themselves if the owners were not complicit. After yesterday, I think that's all changed; the public now knows that that players have "get out of jail free" cards written into their contracts.

I personally stopped following baseball, except for occasional encounters with the game, several years ago. A decade of strikes by grown men who get paid a great deal of money to play a kid's game struck me a somewhat retarded. I'm even sicker over it when my favorite sport of hockey is now involved in the same thing. However, I have, in the past couple of years, actually gone to the ballpark and watched a few games, both pro and A-ball. I liked the A-ball game better, since the players there were hustling, diving, sliding and striving; it was fun to watch. I'd rather watch people who are hungry, who want to make a name for themselves, who play hard everyday with enthusiasm than to watch a drug-enhanced, multi-millionaire who won't even try to leg out a ground ball. That's baseball. What we have now, with junkie players and timid owners more concerned with their wallets than their product, is too painful to watch.

The 9th (Short) Circuit...
Pity being a judge on the Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco; the very fate of Western Civilization rests upon your ability to make judgements on the most serious issues of the day. It's a great responsibility that requires reason, logic, a healthy respect for the republic, the love and protection of the law, the ability to balance the Constitution against the well-being of society.

Unfortunately, no one on that court seems able to handle the job.

Once again, the ugly spectre of gay marriage was put before the court, and once again, political correctness and the strange, wasting mental disease that affects most people in San Francisco manifested itself in the court's latest gem of jurisprudence.

The court, in a majority decision, once again ruled that California MUST allow Gay Marriages to be treated with the same respect and legal protections as traditional matrimony. To do otherwise, deigns the court, is a violation of people's civil rights every bit as pernicious as segregation and refusal of the franchise.

Once again, I am mystified as to how people can spend millions of hours in law school, decades practicing law, and still be so fucking stupid. The courts, and not just in California but nation-wide, continue to miss the point.

Their job is not to make new law but merely to interpret and enforce the law as it already exists. There is no provision in the Constitution wherein people can have everything they want solely becuse they can make enough noise about it. The only thing guarenteed by the Constitution is the pursuit of happiness --- not necessarily obtaining it. The voters of California have stated quite plainly on several occasions that they do not wish to allow homosexual marriages. Society as a whole has decided that marriage is an institution between people of different sexes --- it is the law of the land.

However, judges somehow decided that ther job is not to enforce the law but to circumvent it if it interferes with their own agendas or is contarary to their own point of view. Dissent, I'll warant, is a healthy thing. Judicial review is a marvel of our constitutional republic. But neither is of any use if the dissent and the review lead to judges overstepping their authority and overriding the will of the people.

For the 354th time let me reiterate that I am not prejudiced against homosexuals (although I do find them funny as hell). However, these arguments about gay marriage, allowing gay couples to adopt children, etc, etc, are not civil rights issues. They are temper tantrums being thrown by people who, on the one hand, wish simply to live their lives free of stigma. On the other hand, they also wish to have their lifestyle normalized, in every way, in the face of a society which is mostly disgusted and (near-)violently opposed to such normalization. It's not a legal issue: every state in the union, just about, makes some allowances with Domestic partner laws or some form of Civil Union, so in effect, gay couples do have many of the same protections as heterosexual couples. The major difference is that society will not allow them to wear a white taffeta gown, with matching shoes, and march down the isle.

The objection to gay marriage is based upon tradition and religious beilief, and society's willingness to back both of these up --- it is not based upon the law. The law merely reinforces these beliefs and traditions. Therefore, since the prohibition is not merely legal, the legal system can do nothing to interfere with it. The second the law intrudes upon those traditions and religious customs, it is guilty of what he ACLU calls "violating the seperation of church and state". When that happens, the ACLU and it's auxillaries scream bloody murder and sue everyone in sight, unless of course, the perversion of the 1st Amendment in question serves some politically correct cause. Like making sure Bruce and Lance have the opportunity to toss the bouquet.

How about a little sanity from the 9th Circuit Court? Better yet, how about we just replace all the judges on the court with people able to adjudicate the law without dragging their personal beliefs into the courtroom? Better yet, how about we start moving judges around the country based upon their geographical origin: southern judges get to rule out west, northern ones in the southwest, southwestern ones in the north and western ones in the south. Should that ever happen, judges might actually be forced to be sensitive to the requirements of the people they lord over; let's just see what would happen if a judge from San Francisco tried to rule in such a way in the south. Why, there might actually be a lynch mob outside the courthouse, and eventually, you would get a more circumspect judge. Works for me.

As for Bruce and Lance, just remember that this society is tolerant enough to let you engage in whatever behavior you desire in the privacy of your own home. If you lived in Iran, for example, you wouldn't have that priviledge -- you'd be dead. Sacrificing the piece of paper and the reception seem a small price to pay for engaging in a disgusting lifestyle in freedom, now don't they?

A Plea for Sanity...
Is it too much to ask that we be allowed to have at least one aspect of modern life that is not tainted by the stench of pornography? I ask this because what used to be a sorta-kinda pleasureable pasttime has become an annoying minefield.

The pasttime I'm talking about is chatting online. At one time, you were able to chat freely with friends in a chat room without being bombarded by quick advertisements for porn. How many times have you been talking with your friends and something like this floats across the screen:

"Lonely F/20....Wants to chat or whatever...I can put both legs behind my head...Check out my live cam!"

And it's not only the female "bots" that leave such messages. There are male bots, homosexual bots, beastiality bots, hermaphrodite bots, child-molester bots, etc, etc. They're all shining examples of the depths to which human nature will descend.

The internet, we were told, was supposed to revolutionize our lives. Instead, it's brought smut right to your doorstep, so to speak. The ability to access information at the speed of light has had an unintended consequence: we can now also engage our penchant for filth at the speed of light, too.

What consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home is not my business, but do the rest of us have to be subjected to it? You can complain to AOL all you want about this sort of thing, but as long as the bot in question pays his/her bill, AOL does nothing. Yahoo is even worse.
There should be some sort of decency on the 'Net, after all. I mean, it's illegal to use foul language or make sexually-explicit suggestions, under certain circumstances, on the telephone --- why not online? Porn is restricted on TV to certain channels after certain hours, why not chat rooms?

I'm constantly bombarded by the plaintive wails of the permanently panty-bunched about how America is becoming a theocratic, Taliban-style state, what with all these evil evangelicals and conservative Catholics here, but somehow, they haven't managed to penetrate the smutty media of our day. Porn is openly advertised online, in full view of children, no less, and we're supposed to just ignore it.

I don't intend to have government interfere with free enterprise. If AOL, Yahoo, et. al. wish to take money from smut merchants, that's their business. I do, however, expect them to remember that thay have other, paying customers who expect a quiet evening of chat without the seventeen-times-a-minute pleas from cyber whorehouses and such to "check out my cam!'.

Let's not forget the threat to security such activities present as well. Giving out credit card information in order to masturbate to your computer doesn't exactly seem to be smart. Replying to smutty spam that suddenly launches you into thirteen other websites, all with some form of spyware I wouldn't doubt, is not conducive to keeping your personal information safe. Then there's the market angle: if enough people get fed up with this sort of thing, then AOL and Yahoo will be nothing but a 24-hr, seven-day-a-week porn mill, and people will find other alternatives, or create their alternatives. Such alternatives might actually cause either AOL or Yahoo to go belly up. The one sure way to ensure you get our wish from a monolithic business is to take your business elsewhere.

So, if there's anyone out here who has the technial skills and, ore importantly the finances, to help me start up a "clean" ISP, free of porn, free of spam, and free of everything execpt what people actually want from their onlin eexperience, please let me know. I've got a business model and some good ideas.

In the meantime, I'll continue to pay $23.99 a month to an uncaring corporate entity and dodge the spam, the porn and the bots. It isn't right, but at the moment, there are few alternatives.

Pandering for fun and profit...
I was watching a newscast yesterday in which the widow of Jackie Robinson, Rachel, was presented with the Congressional Gold Medal on behalf of her deceased husabnd. Long overdue, if you ask me, since the man was not only a true pioneer, a model citizen and a heck of a ballplayer, but a bona-fide role model in a world that tosses that description aropund all too easily. What Jackie Robinson had to endure to be accepted in society, let alone Major league baseball, was horrendous, and he did it with style, grace and class. He let his abilities and his character do his talking for him.

What I couldn't figure out for the life of me, though, was what was John Kerry doing on the same stage?

Apparently, Kerry had something to do with getting the medal awarded in the first place. yet another example of Senator Do-Nothing going about justifying his continued federal paycheck. Massachusetts, for all I know, has no place in the Jackie Robinson story. What possible connection vis-a-vis Kerry and Robinson could there be? Then it struck me: the man is campaigning again, and he has to be seen with every black person of repute in order to get the message across --- I 'care' about you.

Another piece out of place on that stage was Jesse Jackson. Like a bad cold, Jacskon just does not seem to go away. Discredit him and he's still there. Prove him to be a liar, and still he remains. Jesse is an anachronism, but somehow, manages to make himself releveant, or at least visible. Makes no sense to me.

Unless, of course, the idea is to pander, which was the purpose of the entire exercise yesterday. If I were President Bush, I would have demanded that jesse Jackson and John Kerry get the hell off th epodium before I stepped on it. I wouldn;t have given the the opportunity for opportunism. But that's just the kind of guy Bush is: he forgives his enemies, I guess.

To the Robinson family, I pass along my heartfelt appreciation and congratulations that Jackie's achievments continue to receive the recognition they so richly deserve. To the Kerrys and Jacksons I pass along my heartfelt disgust.

Sen. Byrd: Alzheimer's Can't get here fast enough...
Pity the democrats when their elder statesman can think of nothing more constructive to do than to hurl the epithet 'Nazi' at the present administration.

The subject is judicial nominations. Judicial nominations are always important; from a normal person's point of view, it's good to know we have our full compliment of federal judges, going about those things that federal judges are supposed to do --- like uphold the law. It's also nice to know that our court system operates as efficiently as possible, if only because we have, at least, the proper number of people to adjudicate the court's business.

If, however, you are a democrat, and you've lost all vestiges of power in the corridors of Washington, judicial nominees become vitally important for another reason: since you can no longer subvert the republic by legal, Constittutional methods and procedures (like trying to pass a bill in Congress), you must depend on judges to subvert the intent of laws you wish didn't exist, or declare unconstitutional laws you do not like. You need trustworthy judges (in an ideological sense) to govern vicariously through until the day comes when you might steal power again.

Granted, Republicans have done the same thing over the years, so I cannot lay the recent bruohaha completely at the feet of the democrats. But now, here in the 21st century, these kinds of battles are getting ever more ridiculous, ever more bitter and ever more partisan.

Enter Sen. Byrd. According to the good octagenarian sentaor from the inbred state of West Virginia (and how long will it be before we find out he also had illegitimate children by a black woman, too?), the Bush administration's handling of their judicial nominees reminds him of the way in which Adolf Hitler subverted the rule of law in order to institute his Nazi vision across Germany, and eventually, across an entire continent.

Now, if I were a former Klansman and segregationist, par excellance, I would be mighty careful about who I called a Nazi. If my legacy was going to be having every rest stop and child abuse center in the Great State of West-by-God-Virginia named after me, I'd be circumspect about casting aspersions about other people's motives. When it comes to the other democrats on the Judicial committee, like Mr. Schumer, Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Leahy, I'd be mighty careful about picking my fights, particularly since my party is in the minority and set to be there for the foreseeable future.

Although it is not engraved in stone that every single nomiee should be rubber-stamped, these ideological tests are ridiculous. As far as I'm concerned, the litmus tests for federal judgeships should be simple and logical; if the nominee doesn't have a criminal record, has served on the bench for a respectable amount of time, and seems to make sense with his/her rulings, then that person is qualified to be a federal judge.

But qualifications and logic don't seem to enter into this equation at all. Hence, al the clap-trap about Nazis and Roe v. Wade. Incidentally, even Roe no longer believes that law to be valid. But I digress.

Aside from the fact that President Bush won the election and is entitled to nominate for any position whomever he wants, I can think of no reason other than ideology that causes these incredible battles over trivial things.

The latest excuse for delaying the process was laid out perfectly by Bill Press the other night on Hannity and Colmes. Bill made the point that the Bush Administration has had 97% of their nominees confirmed in the last five years, and dammit, can't they be satisfied with that? No Bill, they cannot. With the Presidency comes the right to nominate whomever you wish to any federal job. Congress' job after that is simple "advise and consent" not "obstruct and delay". Again, unless we're talking about a grievously unqualified candidate, there should be no problems in getting the nomination through congress. In short, the President should have 100% of his nominees, short of riminal records or eggregious behavior, nominated. To the victors go the spoils.

We're talking about Congress carrying out it's constitutionally-appointed duty to see to it that the "people's business" and the "administration of justice" are carried out. One other thing -- if Ted Kennedy was on any kind of commitee concerned with Justice, I'd be embarrassed to the point of keeping my mouth shut.

Sen. Byrd, fortunately, will not be with us much longer. I don't wish him any ill, it's just a fact of life. Perhaps that explains his attitude and his comments: it's not like anyone is going to hold an old, dying man responsible for his words and deeds. Or perhaps Alzheimers has finally set in.

Taking Ann Coulter to the Woodshed...
Despite the fact that I love Ann Coulter and would gladly bear her children, if such a thing were possible, there comes a time when even such a vision of lovliness, smarts and cuteness becomes a pompous ass. Last night was oneof those times.

Calling Alan Colmes a liar crossed a line. I don't like Alan, and hardly ever agree with anything he has to say, but as far as I can tell, he's not free and loose with the truth, even his own version of it. Give credit where it's due, at least he is consistent in his ideological idocy and seems totally sincere when spewing democratic talking points.

Be that as it may, while I know Ann was attempting to be facetious on Hannity and Colmes last night, she did cross a line. Smiling and batting the baby blues could not save the situation. Ann, darling, I'd still crawl across broken glass to be bathed in your glow, but please, be a little more circumspect when throwing epithets. After all, it's what you take Maureen Dowd to task for every day.

Not So Stupid Now, Is He?
Regarding recent events in the Middle East, I have but one question to ask of all those tiny, little minds at democratic HQ, NYU, the liberal "think tanks", the editors of Slate, the Nation, The New Yorker, and a million editorial pages across the country: George W. Bush is not such a dumbass after all, is he?

Free and fair elections in Afghanistan (in which women actually came out to vote, imagine that?). Another election in Iraq. A softening of the hard line in Libya. Nascent democracy in Lebanon, the isolation of Syria, noises about something apporaching a democratic process in Egypt. The Palestinians (whatever they are) sitting down, almost willing to be dictated to. All this from a man who manages to mangle the English language everyday.

Who woulda thunk it?

Well, we did. By "we" I mean the people who don't believe that giving the world a Coke and teaching them to sing actually solves the world's problems. We are witnessing a new chapter in the history of the world: the spread of democracy in areas that heretofore would never even know what that was. In twenty years, we'll sit back and look on these developments with amazment.

My Continuing South'ren Education...
I've just recently learned that while I might be a no-good carpetbagger, I still can perform a useful function in modern Southern Society; as class clown. In the last three weeks, I have attended two parties in which I became a minor celebrity because of my Yankee talent to do one thing better than any southerner could, which is to curse up a storm.

For some reason, foul language amuses some of these folks. By and large, many get offended, rightfully, when such colorful words erupt in an uninterrupted stream, but a great many roll on the floor holding their sides when I let loose with profanity. Biological and scattalogical terms seem to get the biggest laughs.

What's worse is that I willingly obliged. I could blame the beer, but I won't.

That most hated sound in all the world, the Yankee accent, becomes acceptable if there's some form of profanity involved. People are litterally amazed at the colorful way in which New Yorkers can string together a stream of foul words for as long as 60 seconds at a time. The most intriguing aspect of all of this though, to them, was my use of the F-word. I was complimented several times, asked for lessons on how to use the word properly and even had a lady or two tell me I had the sexiest way of saying it. I admit, it was an ego stroke.

Utilizing that word as every part of speech and occasionally as punctuation, is a skill that astounds. I have to say that I now feel stupid for having done it (not once, but twice) and should have known better than to draw that kind of attention to myself. I had been making a conscious effort to clean up my language for a long time now, and this might have set me back.

Human nature, as always, continues to amaze.