Me First!

2007-10-21T05:14:00.001-07:00

A good reason to move to North Carolina:

This is what my new hometown looks like every morning.

2007-09-13T13:31:00.000-07:00

Holy shit!

If there's any justice in the world, this would be national news, and the Champaign County State's Attorney's office and courthouse would be exposed as a safe haven for drunk drivers, felony fleeing-the-scene NCAA Division I basketball players, and bicyclist runner-overs.

Judge Klaus said that there was "sufficient evidence" to support Davis’ defense; why weren’t Ninomiya or Carlson charged with an offense related to "plying" Davis (a minor) with vodka (or sexual assault, for that matter)? Why are there no pending cases addressing Davis’ underage drinking (an infraction which could cause her to lose her driving privileges)? Armed with a .20 BAC, I’m sure that Ms. Davis decided to drive blitzed halfway across town after thinking hard about her choices. Is anyone related to this case going to be held responsible for any damages or criminal behavior? The way the State’s Attorney handled cases like this one, Jamar Smith’s, and the girl who killed Matt Wilhelm while downloading a ringtone should make anyone nervous about being anywhere near a highway or parking lot in Champaign County. You blew a .20 leaving a bar in C-U? No problem! Just tell the nice judge that a big, scary person on foot was threatening to kill, beat, or molest you. Case dismissed!

If there's any consolation to this, it's that if you or anyone you love is cut in half by a drunk or distracted driver, the Champaign County State's Attorney's office will make sure that justice is well-served. I'm joking, of course. Good luck with that civil suit when no one is responsible.

I'm blogging again, so I must be pissed about this.

2007-03-12T23:37:00.000-07:00

So, you've been diagnosed with ADHD? Why'n'cha do something useful with it?

What was it I was gonna write about? Oh, yeah. This is an interesting article, but not nearly as interesting as it could've been had the writer ventured any guesses as to the reasons behind the threefold increase in the use of ADHD-related drugs since 1993.

Why is this a typical (hypothetical) statement from the parent of an ADHD kid, according to me:
"Little Billy divides his after-school time between World of Warcraft, Halo2, and Ghost Recon, then hits the internet for MySpace and IM updates until it's really too late for him to dig too deeply into his homework. Between my career, my Aerobi-Jazzer-Yoga-size classes, and my Botox treatments, I'm finding it difficult to provide the parenting that a special child like Billy requires."

...and not this?:
"Little Billy came home from school, took out the trash, changed the oil in both cars, did the previous night's dishes, mowed the lawn, painted the house, completed his homework, and still had time to call his friends before going to bed, completely exhausted."

Why does it seem that ADHD is normally used as an excuse for not getting something necessary done, instead of an explanation for why one has no leisure time? I'll make a prediction that when someone discovers the cure for cancer, he or she won't make a statement like, "Yeah! I painted the entire exterior of the house in two freakin' hours, spent another coupla hours volunteering at the local animal shelter, spent some time categorizing sale items at Goodwill, then discovered the cure for freakin' cancer!"

Parenting in a pill; how wonderful. I probably would've been diagnosed with ADHD when I was growing up had its discovery not mysteriously coincided with the introduction of more advanced video games and widespread availability of the internet, neither of which existed during my childhood years. The only distractions that I had growing up were a set of encyclopedias, a globe, an 8-track player, and a room decorated in the style of circa-1776 America, complete with cork ball musket. Well, that, and the knowledge that I would be well-disciplined by my parents or other authority figures if I did not do what I was supposed to do.

I'm not a doctor, and can't say that there aren't people with a genuine need for ADHD treatment. I don't mean to poke fun at anyone with a legitimate ADHD diagnosis. For all I know, full-blown ADHD could be a serious, debilitating affliction. I'm just proposing that the ADHD diagnosis (and who, really -by NIMH guidelines- couldn't be diagnosed with ADHD?) and treatment should not be used as an excuse for lack of parental interest or other poor parenting skills.

2007-03-06T00:47:00.000-08:00

Guh?

Should we be offering potential University of Illinois athletes a four-year plea deal (two years in state lockup/two years of probation) instead of a four-year scholarship?

Seriously. Are any of my tax dollars going to these scholarships, or does it all come from the I Fund? If taxes are funding the scholarships for these jokers, why do I also have to help pay to squeeze them through the legal system (law enforcement, court costs, corrections, etc.)?

2007-01-30T23:11:00.000-08:00

New, mostly unsatisfying motorcycle blog is up!

My new blog, Ninety-Nine Percenter, is up (the link's on the right). Not much posted at the moment, but there's a bit of my philosophy regarding motorcycles as well as a few photos. Anyone, biker or not, is free to chime in.

2007-01-29T19:22:00.000-08:00

The best songs and albums of 2006, at this particular moment…

Against my best wishes, someone traded a crack pipe for about 80 of my favorite CDs in a motel room in Oklahoma City last year. Yeah, I’m still bitter about it. Rather than shell out the bucks to buy replacements for everything that I lost (with the exception of a few key albums), I learned that I would need new, previously-unheard of by me music in order to survive. One album is 30 years old; most of these selections are a little obscure. If you wanna borrow ‘em, let me know!

Buckethead and Friends, Enter the Chicken (2005)
Buckethead is strange. He’s probably known best for his collaborations with Bill Laswell and Les Claypool. Ozzy was afraid that he’d show up for a gig to find a note from Buckethead saying he’d been "beamed up," which is why he didn’t hire him. He was released from Guns ‘n’ Roses for being unreliable and difficult for even his family to contact, which probably says very much. He’s capable of playing incredibly brutal music, but he’s capable of beautifully touching music as well. Enter the Chicken runs the full spectrum, from the aural pounding of "Nottingham Lace" to the moody softness of the Serj Tankian (System of a Down)/Shana Halligan (bitter:sweet) duet, "Waiting Here." Lots of loops, some occasionally unintelligible lyrics, but all highly listenable stuff.

Sufjan Stevens, Illinois (2005)
The side of the jewel case calls this album "Illinois," while the front (and Amazon.com) call it "Illinoise" (as in "Come on feel the..."). It seems to me more likely that an album would be titled "Illinois" rather than "Sufjan Stevens invites you to: Come on feel the Illinoise," as the front of the album invites you to do, so Illinois is what I'm calling it.

I listened to the hype surrounding this album for about half of 2006 without having heard one note from it. I don’t consider myself a music snob, but when modern arena rock heroes are groups along the lines of Matchbox 20, Blink 182, and Limp Bizkit, my mind tends to block out anything that alternative/college rock press tries to pound into it. I’ll admit that I was wrong and the press was right with the hype for this one. If I hadn’t seen the Austin City Limits with Sufjan, Shara Worden, and what appeared to be most of a full orchestra, I might’ve overlooked this album, too. This album is all beautiful stuff, from the orchestration to the occasionally wacky lyrics. Some of the orchestration reminds me of Zappa, which is a huge compliment from me; there’s much going on at a technical level that people who appreciate that aspect of Zappa’s compositions—or anyone—can appreciate. Even if one can’t quite geet into the music at face value, I think that almost anyone would agree that it’s composed and performed by one insanely talented individual.

Michael Andrews, Donnie Darko (2005, Music From the Original Motion Picture Score)
This is dark, moody, mostly-instrumental album from a mostly dark, moody movie. The movie itself makes me think profound thoughts about life, death, and sacrifice; falling asleep to the soundtrack makes me wake up midway through it, freaked out by a sinister sounding creak or other instrumental boink. There’s a beautiful remake of Tears For Fears "Mad World" at the end, which alone is worth the purchase price.

Paul Gilbert, Get Out Of My Yard (2006)
You’ve probably heard Paul Gilbert without realizing it. He was the guitarist for Mr.Big (remember "To Be With You"?). He’s spent a lot of time in Japan as an instructor, and has recorded several solo albums through the years. He’s always near the top of guitar player’s polls in the mags, and is known for being extremely fast and extremely accurate. This new instrumental album showcases his songwriting/arranging abilities, as well as his agility on the fretboard. Highlights are "Marine Layer," a sweet acoustic duet with his wife, Emi, on piano, and the bluesy-fusion of "Twelve Twelve" and "Rusty Old Boat." He also does more with a three-string guitar tribute to Eddie Van Halen than I could ever imagine pulling off with six strings and eight hands.

Television, Marquee Moon (1977, Marquee Moon)
I’m not really much into Lou Reed’s music, and groups like the Dolls don’t do anything for me. The fact that Mapplethorpe shot the cover for this album probably would’ve caused me to lump Television into the early ‘70s Warhol-ish/decadent/artsy New York scene had I not heard the title track on WPGU. Some obviously history-ignorant person posted a comment on Amazon that these guys were essentially Violent Femmes ripoffs. I’ll admit that I did think that Tom Verlaine sounds a bit like Gordon Gano, and thought this was a Femmes song when I first heard it. The song seems to fade to an ending twice; while discussing with a coworker whether or not they were going to name the artist on the radio, it "began" again (and they did announce it after it was over). I found a used copy at Exile on the day that I heard it; they’d just aquired it earlier that day (fate?). There’s some seriously cool guitar/bass slightly odd time interplay, which is true for the most part for the rest of the album. A lot of reviewers on the ‘net seem to think that this album would hold up well if it were released today. I agree.

Fiona Apple, Not About Love (2005, Extraordinary Machine)
I first heard this song on WPGU, and my first thought was, "This sounds like Fiona Apple, but I don’t like Fiona Apple." I have a newfound respect for her writing and performance after this track, buried near the end of the album. Piano is at the forefront of the mix, with some crazy, swirling stringy orchestral stabs throughout. For some reason, I picture film noir-ish black tie dance numbers when I hear it. Lyrics are typically Fiona Apple-ish (relationship-y), but with enough word-turning to keep things interesting. A small example:

The early cars
Already are
Drawing deep breaths past my door
And last night's phrases
Sick with lack of basis
Are still writhing on my floor

The Good Life, Album of the Year (2004, Album of the Year)
This song is like a movie about a failed relationship compressed into song form. Apparently, Tim Kasher (the singer/songwriter) was going through a nasty marital breakup as the songs for this album were written. We go from this:

The first time that I met her I was throwing up in the ladies room stall
She asked me if I needed anything, I said, "I think I spilled my drink."
And that’s how it started, or so I’d like to believe

The first time that I met her I was convinced that I had finally found the one
She was convinced I was under the influence of all those drunken romantics
I was reading Bronte at the time; I had Bukowski on my mind

(Note: Bonus points for the Bukowski reference!)

…to this, later in the song:

She said, "Space is not just the place for stars,
I gave you an inch, you want a house with a yard."
And I know she loved me once, but those days are done
She used to call me ever day from a pay phone on her break for lunch,
Just to say she can’t wait to come home.

Yikes. Very sad, but very beautiful, and not horribly bitter in the end. The music is well-written and listenable, too, with some cool REM-like guitar noodling throughout.

2006-10-18T18:31:00.000-07:00

When a doo-rag just won't doo.....

As promised, my new line of t-shirts is nearly complete. The first out of the sweatshop will be my "Gang Affiliation" line. If you're proud of whom you're down with, show the world! If your gang isn't "represented" here, drop me a line. Custom orders are possible on a case-by-case basis.

These will be followed by "Memories of Democracy." Here's a sneak preview of the first in that series:

Enjoy!!

2006-10-17T22:40:00.000-07:00

Run over and kill someone, go to ja...well, you might possibly be punished, anyway...

Recently, a 19-year-old Urbana woman made headlines after killing a cyclist on route 130 while downloading ringtones on her cell phone. After discovering that she was charged only with "improper lane usage," I was a bit irate, to say the least. As an occasional runner, cyclist, and motorcyclist, it seems plain wrong to me that someone can end the life of another human being through negligent, inattentive driving and not even face a license suspension. She entered a guilty plea a few weeks ago, and is to be sentenced on November 29th. The maximum sentence she can receive is a $1000.00 fine.

I calmed down a bit after reading Champaign County State’s Attorney Julia Rietz’s comments regarding the plea in the News-Gazette a few weeks ago. She stated that, with regard to her not charging the woman with reckless homicide or involuntary manslaughter, ""The mental state for (those crimes) is a willful and wanton disregard for the safety of others. And her actions here don't rise to that level. People drive negligently and cause accidents. Because accidents result in fatalities does not justify charging the driver with a felony." I, believe it or not, agree with this. Running over someone and depriving them of their life doesn’t necessarily require punishment in the form of years of unsolicited buggery in a state prison.

However…

Driving through a construction zone on I-57 last week, I noticed the signs which no one probably gives much thought to anymore; the signs that say "HIT A WORKER: $10,000 FINE / 14 YEARS." It struck me as extremely stupid that one could fly through a construction zone, missing all indications that they’re traveling through said zone, hit/kill a worker who is most likely expected to be dangerously close to the roadway, and be more liable or guilty of a higher crime than a person who drives over someone on route 130 while downloading a ringtone. Maybe I’m the only one who sees it this way (and admittedly, I don’t know offhand what charges one would face for killing someone in a construction zone), but this says to me that a driver must absolutely pay attention and obey the law in construction zones, but that attentiveness and responsibility are only "encouraged" on any other roadways. Why shouldn’t the penalties outside of a construction zone be as harsh? Why shouldn’t one, at least, lose their right to drive FOREVER in the state of Illinois if they’ve killed someone through negligent driving? Civil suits aside, is your husband/wife/child/mother/father/friend/etc. worth only $1,000—payable to the state of Illinois? When someone is killed through bad driving, do the bereaved find additional peace of mind in knowing that whoever killed their loved one is absolutely free to do it again?

State’s Attorney Rietz went on to say that, "Any time someone violates a traffic safety law or gives less than their full attention to safe driving, it's more likely an accident is going to result, but that is not recklessness under the law. That's negligence. If people disagree with the law as it is written, they should address their state legislators." I plan to do just that.

2006-09-28T19:47:00.002-07:00

Why all non-Republican candidates are doomed to fail on November 7th...

This insight, from some huckleberry who penned this letter to the editor in the September 19th issue of the News-Gazette:

"We love George W. Bush. May I please explain why most Democrats and so many people hate him. We are engaged in a great spiritual battle. We are at war, good versus evil. God against Satan. Christians against the fallen world.

George W. Bush is a born-again Christian. He is a great man of God. He will be remembered in history as one of our greatest presidents.

Unbelievers, people without God, do not understand. They do not have Jesus. They do not have the power of the Holy Spirit. They are void of understanding. Their lost condition and lack of knowledge manifest as hatred toward our great president."

I don't think that this letter, if intended to be satirical and/or to cause people to cringe at such a black and white assessment of either party, is going to work because I'm certain that there are quite a few people out there who believe the above to be true. A member of my family told me before the '04 elections that he couldn't possibly vote for a Democrat (though acknowledging the massive amount of civilian deaths in Iraq) because he "couldn't stand in front of Jesus with a clear conscience for having allowed a gay marriage amendment to pass or to keep abortion legal." This, from a man who knows no gay men or women nor has any relative who's ever opted for (or would ever opt for) an abortion. Try to reason with a person who can stand to see tens of thousands slaughtered but thinks that Jesus is going to send him down the black chute for not physically assaulting two men or women for kissing in public. This seems to be a typical attitude among Christian fundamentalists: Not in my back yard, and by "my back yard" I mean your back yard, your bedroom, your doctor's office, county, state, and nation--and to hell with any non-Christians who might happen to get in the way of our bullets. It's a sad thing to consider that many, many people are too stupid to realize, admit, or care that the goal of their Godly leaders is to turn the nation into a theocracy while feeding stock lines about "Islamo-fascism" as they continue to kiss the hind ends of the ruling class of the wealthiest Middle Eastern theocracy. The hands of one of these "great (men) of God" might be cupped around your ear as they whisper sweet nothings about your heavenly rewards for waging a Christian holy war, but the other will be in your pants, desparately digging for your wallet.

I may be in the minority on this, but I think I'll chose to continue to blindly believe in a loving God. Pardon me for possibly oversimplifying, but how many gay marriages are worth the life of 30,000 Iraqi civilians in God's eyes, do you suppose?

2006-09-25T10:48:00.000-07:00

This might be worth a chuckle…

…if it had happened in Mayberry in 1950, instead of happening today in New York state. New York (along with approximately 29 other states, according to an article in the NY Times) is apparently full of town "justices" with sub-high school educations, and a serious lack of the knowledge needed in order to determine right from wrong.

A snippet, from today's New York Times:

(snip)
An Essex County town justice, Richard H. Rock, jailed two 16-year-olds overnight without a trial, saying he wanted "to teach them a lesson." They had been accused of spitting at two other people and charged with harassment. Then he sent them back for 10 more days, the commission said, without ever advising them they had a right to a lawyer.

In 2001, the commission punished him and Justice Maclaughlin with censure, the most serious penalty short of removal from the bench. Justice Maclaughlin is now in his 11th year in office. Justice Rock is in his 10th.

In Alexandria Bay, where Justice Pennington presided at a metal desk in a tiny room inside the police building, a quarter-century in office did not seem to deepen his understanding of his role. Just three days after he took home the 17-year-old girl, another case raised fresh questions about his familiarity with the law, or even the world outside his court.

Eeric D. Bailey, a 21-year-old black soldier from nearby Fort Drum, was facing a disorderly conduct charge after a tussle with a white bar bouncer. Sitting three feet from Mr. Bailey, the bouncer identified him as "that colored man." Mr. Bailey’s jaw dropped.

The soldier, who did not have a lawyer, told the judge that the term was offensive. But Justice Pennington said that while certain other words were racist, "colored" was not. "For years we had no colored people here," he said.

The commission had heard worse. After arraigning three black defendants arrested in a college disturbance in 1994, a justice in the Finger Lakes region said in court, "Oh, it’s been a rough day — all those blacks in here." A few years before that, a Catskill justice reminisced in court that it was safe for young women to walk around "before the blacks and Puerto Ricans moved here."

In an interview, Justice Pennington said the commission had treated him unfairly. But he may not have helped his case when he told the commission that "colored" was an acceptable description.

"I mean, to me," he testified, "colored doesn’t preferably mean black. It could be an Indian, who’s red. It could be Chinese, who’s considered yellow."
(snip)

(Link lifted from www.thismodernworld.com)

2006-09-21T07:31:00.000-07:00

Just in case...

In order to keep my brain intact, I'm going to try to keep from posting politically until after the November elections. Shouldn't be too difficult; I've posted twice since May, after all.

Anyhoo, in case the GOP manages to maintain their lock on both the House and Senate in November following what will probably be the last free elections held in the U.S., let me just say this: I will welcome our fair and benevolent Republican overlords!

2006-09-20T10:39:00.000-07:00

"I can’t stands no more!" (apologies to The Simpson’s parody of Popeye)...

WARNING! SNOBBY POLITICAL STATEMENTS AHEAD!

Have you noticed the "If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention" bumper stickers? Well, I honestly can’t understand why I can’t pop my head out the window at any time of the day or night to hear flat-out screaming for the impeachment of George W., or (at the least) the takeover of the house and senate this November by non-Republicans.

I haven’t the time or the space to go into the details about injustices which have been readily accessible to all humans willing to stray a bit from the inaccuracies that consistently emanate from the Fox News, Anne Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, etc. websites. Lately, though, I've started to feel as though the administration is personally insulting my intelligence. From the AP:

Bush said the Geneva Convention's ban was "very vague" and required clarification. "What does that mean, 'outrages upon human dignity?' That's a statement that is wide open to interpretation."

I’ll spare you any stupid remarks that statement is begging for, and just say this: Your President, a grown adult, is fighting for the United States’ right to torture whomever it feels like torturing, based on the tiniest shred of "evidence" (hearsay from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, for example). There are studies that show that information extracted under duress is not generally reliable. If, for example, I wired your nipples up to a car battery and asked you to confess that you're Donald Rumsfeld's love child, what would you most likely say? This (torture, and the mindset of those who want to torture), people, is WRONG. Exhibit B, from the White House website last week:

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Earlier this week, you told a group of journalists that you thought the idea of sending special forces to Pakistan to hunt down bin Laden was a strategy that would not work.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
Q Now, recently you've also --
THE PRESIDENT: Because, first of all, Pakistan is a sovereign nation.
Q Well, recently you've also described bin Laden as a sort of modern day Hitler or Mussolini. And I'm wondering why, if you can explain why you think it's a bad idea to send more resources to hunt down bin Laden, wherever he is?
THE PRESIDENT: We are, Richard. Thank you. Thanks for asking the question. They were asking me about somebody's report, well, special forces here -- Pakistan -- if he is in Pakistan, as this person thought he might be, who is asking the question -- Pakistan is a sovereign nation. In order for us to send thousands of troops into a sovereign nation, we've got to be invited by the government of Pakistan.

Do I even need to explain to anyone what is WRONG with that statement?

If you are a resident of Illinois, it behooves you to write to Senators Dick Durbin (http://durbin.senate.gov/contact.cfm) and Barack Obama (http://obama.senate.gov/contact/) and tell them how you, as constituents, feel about the excesses and abuses of power perpetrated by the Bush Administration. No matter how pissed off you feel about the current regime (or how happy you might feel about the prospect of legalized torture, even—I won’t ask) you need to contact these people by e-mail, U.S. Mail, or telephone because NO ONE—not Michael Moore, not Jon Stewart, not Ben from True Majority, not Al Franken--- is speaking for or can speak for YOU.

I won’t tell anyone what to write, although I will suggest this: Tell them that no matter what comprimises are reached with the GOP and the President during the remainder of this administration, you do not want language installed that will grant immunity from prosecution to anyone involved in abuses of power and authority in the past.

2006-05-16T21:57:00.000-07:00

"Lookee my new pickup truck...!"

...is what I could be saying next month, if I'm guessing correctly at my wife's birthday plans for me. Shhh! Don't let her know that I'm on to her surprise...

This, friends, is a Terex I Unit Rig MT 5500. The seriousness of the name alone should be enough to send your average jacked-up 4X4 scampering away to Off Road Warehouse for some serious parts upgrades. Most people wouldn't consider me a pickup truck type, but I have to admit that they'd occasionally be useful for hauling brush and trips to Menard's.

With a 720,000 pound capacity, there isn't much that this puppy won't haul--including a parted-out Boeing 747-400, should the need arise. It also features "tailgate protection to protect the operator in the event of a truck collision," although I wouldn't expect any real damage to occur from a collision with anything less than another Terex I Unit Rig MT 5500. I also wouldn't suspect one would even notice that they'd been involved in a collision with a tractor-trailer, M1 Abrams, the local Wal-Mart, or any other less substantial object.

And the engine? Oooh, the engine!

It's a Cummins QSK60 16 cylinder, 4 stroke diesel with two-stage turbocharging. Its 3,672 cubic inches pump out 2,700 brake horsepower and 8000 foot-pounds of torque at a loafy 1500 RPM. Sure, someone will try to one-up me by shoehorning the 3,500 HP QSK78 into theirs, but I'm not getting this truck out of any sense of one-upmanship. No sir/ma'am: Escalades and Excursions are nice, but would you really want to shovel grass and rocks into one? This truck is a necessity. The fact that it's a two-seater seems to be its only limitation. Call me if you need to borrow it!

2006-05-15T22:39:00.000-07:00

Someone has a birthday coming up...

This would make a great present for someone (shipping guaranteed by June 28th):

According to the Wicked Lasers website, this little puppy can:

-Make holes in black trash bags.
-Cut black electrical tape.
-Ignite wooden or paper matches.
-Pop dark colored balloons.
-Melt plastic.
-Light cigars and cigarettes.
-It also has something called "Open-cut healing power" (??)

All this, a 120 nautical mile range, and a six month warranty, could be mine for only $3,499.

No sir/ma'am, this isn't your basic laser pointer. It could probably be used as a pointer, particularly if one has a need to point through someone who happens to be blocking the board.

I'll be offering free laser eye surgery and electrolysis for anyone who helps me get my mitts on one. I promise to use it only for good; not for evil. If the Fox News satellite happened to spontaneously vaporize one night at the same moment I light up a smoke on the deck, I'm sure it would be purely coincidental.

2006-05-14T19:58:00.000-07:00

Illinois Compiled Statutes lesson...

Most who know me are probably aware that a huge pet peeve of mine is the inconsideration of drivers shown towards others on the road. My wife would testify that I've been guilty of this in the past, myself; however, riding a motorcycle has instilled in my an almost Zen-like calm. Knowing that a bike won't win in a vehicular fight, coupled with the anticipation that people are bound to do stupid things in vehicles, has defitely made me a calmer, safer rider and driver.

I'll admit to a slightly unsafe attitude towards speeding. I'm not a racer-boy, dicing through city streets on the back wheel, but I do use the speed cushion of my bike as part of a (and I'm sure this is arguable) self-preservation technique. Zipping past trucks on the interstate minimizes my exposure to blown retreads; zipping past everyone else minimizes my exposure to the average cel phone-talking, Big Mac-stuffing, inattentive driver. I've been chided by a coworker for signaling a turn into a parking spot in a lot; you can bet that I (at least) always let those around me know my intentions.

Habits that are certain to piss me off, and that I chock up to the me-first mentality are (but are not limited to) the following: people who don't signal (or don't signal correctly); people who don't turn into the nearest legal lane after proceeding through an intersection; people who block traffic in the left lane; and people who drive with their lights off in the rain. The Illinois Compiled Statutes covers each of these infractions:

Turn signals. "A signal of intention to turn right or left when required must be given continuously during not less than the last 100 feet traveled by the vehicle before turning within a business or residence district, and such signal must be given continuously during not less than the last 200 feet traveled by the vehicle before turning outside a business or residence district. No person may stop or suddenly decrease the speed of a vehicle without first giving an appropriate signal in the manner provided in this Chapter to the driver of any vehicle immediately to the rear when there is opportunity to give such a signal." Also, from the "Rules Of The Road," "When moving your vehicle from the right-hand lane to the left-hand lane, turn your head to check traffic behind you and on your left. Give the left turn signal, then carefully move into the left lane. When moving your vehicle from the left-hand lane to the right-hand lane, turn your head to check traffic behind you and on your right. Give the right turn signal, then carefully move into the right lane.

Turning into the nearest legal lane. "The driver of a vehicle intending to turn left at any intersection shall approach the intersection in the extreme left‑hand lane lawfully available to traffic moving in the direction of travel of such vehicle, and after entering the intersection, the left turn shall be made so as to leave the intersection in a lane lawfully available to traffic moving in such direction upon the roadway being entered. Whenever practicable the left turn shall be made in that portion of the intersection to the left of the center of the intersection."

Blocking the right lane on an interstate. "Upon an Interstate highway or fully access controlled freeway, a vehicle may not be driven in the left lane, except when overtaking and passing another vehicle." This does not apply "when no other vehicle is directly behind the vehicle in the left lane."

Headlight use during periods of precipitation. "All other motor vehicles (except motorcycles) shall exhibit at least 2 lighted head lamps, with at least one on each side of the front of the vehicle, which satisfy United States Department of Transportation requirements, showing white lights, including that emitted by high intensity discharge (HID) lamps, or lights of a yellow or amber tint, during the period from sunset to sunrise, at times when rain, snow, fog, or other atmospheric conditions require the use of windshield wipers, and at any other times when, due to insufficient light or unfavorable atmospheric conditions, persons and vehicles on the highway are not clearly discernible at a distance of 1000 feet. Parking lamps may be used in addition to but not in lieu of such head lamps." I don't care if you can see the roadway in the rain. When your rooster tail blends in with heavy precipitation, it concerns me.

Let's be considerate out there, o.k.? And please--keep an eye out for motorcyclists.

2006-05-14T16:03:00.000-07:00

Food is good.

All this blogging about ice cream and being a fat kid is making me hungry. On second thought, I guess it's possible that I was hungry when I wrote about ice cream and being a fat kid. At any rate, I know that my wife worries about my eating habits when I'm on these Oklahoma journeys. I thought I'd detail for her and your reading enjoyment exactly what provisions I have left to last me through Tuesday. Uncle Sam (that is, you, the taxpayer) provides me with a healthy sum of money for per diem on these visits, but the less I spend (the more crap food I eat), the more I have to spend on good food and booze back home.

1 small can of Chef Boyardee Spaghetto-O's (tonight's dinner)
1 can of Campbell's Select Chicken with Egg Noodles (tomorrow's lunch)
1 can of Campbell's Select Italian Wedding (Tuesday's lunch)
1 can of Campbell's Chunky Chicken Corn Chowder (tomorrow's dinner)
1 can of Campbell's Hearty Bean and Ham (Tuesday's dinner)
4 Dole Peaches and Cream cups (one each for M/T lunch and dinner)
1 pound of peeled baby-cut carrots
Marzetti's Bacon Ranch dressing (for above carrots)
half a box of Post Great Grains cereal (Wednesday's breakfast--can't fly at 6:30am
on an empty stomach)
1/2 bag of Dorito's Nacho Cheese chips
1/2 bag of Dorito's Taco chips
1/2 gallon of 2% milk
1/2 gallon of Simply Lemonade
1/2 pint Häagen-Dazs® strawberry ice cream

Et voila! Bon appetit!

2006-05-14T09:04:00.000-07:00

Fat kids need to fight dirtier...

From HealthDay News:

"Overweight kids who could benefit from sports and regular exercise are often discouraged from doing so by taunts and bullying, a U.S. study finds.
(snip)
"We found that as rates of peer victimization among overweight kids went up, rates of physical activity went down," lead author Eric Storch, assistant professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Florida, Gainesville, said in a prepared statement.
(snip)
Not only does bullying make overweight children want to avoid gym class, sports or other situations where they face ridicule, it also can lead to depressed feelings that keep these children from wanting to take part in activities.

"When you think about it, it makes intuitive sense, when you consider the hallmark signs of depression -- sadness, fatigue, lack of interest in things you used to like," Storch noted. "When kids are having a tough time with peers, and struggling with depression, then this can translate to reduced rates of physical activity."

Really? I thought bullying was what made kids dress in black, bring weapons to school, and grow up to be Republicans. Seriously, as a former fat kid, I can't recall being taunted and beaten for looking different when I was in school. There was certainly no distinction made by a P.E. coach between fatties and athletic types when it came to "dressing out," although there may have been a hint of the prison-esque, pick-a-fight-with-the-biggest-guy-in-the-joint mentality present. In the good old '80s, all a fat, uncoordinated kid had to do to win peer respect was to flail about using all arms and legs on whatever upperclassman was unfortunate enough to have picked a fight. To borrow a term from Erik The Viking, being known as a "berserker" may not have won one many friends, but it certainly didn't win many enemies. Pulling sock caps over faces to precede a punch, smashing faces of people on lower levels of the gym bleachers (thus forcing the smashee to calculate the risks of fighting back vs. the risk of tumbling thirty feet to the gym floor) are both effective fighting tactics to be employed by today's modern fat (sorry--is that not PC? Caloric Intake Abatement Challenged? Gland-induced Appetite Insatiable?) kid. These tactics are best utilized if one puts down the PSP from the one hand and discards the Krispy Kreme and/or Big Gulp that one is slopping on from the other.

Ah...High School Sports Memories.

2006-05-14T06:34:00.000-07:00

Shameless plug...

What do you get when you combine cream, strawberries, sugar, skim milk, and egg yolks? If you're in the majority of supermarket ice cream providers, you end up with a good "base" from which to create strawberry ice cream. If you're Häagen-Dazs®, on the other hand, you end up with...well, Häagen-Dazs® strawberry ice cream. One could argue that it's missing a tasty white rum, whipped cream, and a hot summer's day pool to enjoy it by, but it's pretty delicious as is.

If you look on the back of a Häagen-Dazs® pint container, you won't find ingredients listed such as mono- and diglycerides, polysorbate-60, acetone, rattus norvegicus, or any other chemical, fusion reactor byproduct, or circus animal derivative not normally associated with ice cream or its enjoyment. If there is a drawback to Häagen-Dazs®, it's that it does seem quite a bit more expensive per unit than other supermarket brands. I would assume it to be more costly to boil a hoof down to a diglyceride than to get another squirt of pre-cream from a cow's teat, but what do I know?

Do I believe that I'm shortening my lifespan by occasionally partaking of this wholesome, natural treat? Nah. At the very least, by eating these natural ice creams (I'd include Ben & Jerry's in this short list if I liked their flavors) I, and you, will make those in the funeral industry earn their exhorbitant fees by forcing them to actually use the expensive chemicals they claim to use during the preservation process. Years ago, I read that due to the inclusion of preservatives into just about every packaged food that we buy, the average body can sit in the sun for 30 days or so before decomposition sets in (I could be wrong on that figure; whatever, it's considerably longer today than it was in the 1940's). A not insignificant side benefit of eating more organic ice creams will be the lessening of our dependence on petrochemical byproducts, leading to a reduction in our dependence on foreign oil.

(Geez...how did my happy ice-creamed filled thoughts turn so negative, so quickly?)

Just remember to eat plenty of real butter, as many organically-grown and fattened foods as you can afford, and lots of Häagen-Dazs® ice cream!

2006-04-20T19:12:00.000-07:00

Know your enemy: Random notes from Anne Coulter lovers...

Anne Coulter has a new book titled, Godless: The Church of Liberalism. The following are from a couple of raving loonies posting on the Amazon.com discussion group for the book:

"Yes and in the Democratic party one distinguishes oneself by, killing babies, spitting on soldiers, burning American flags and embracing such fine individuals as Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro. I'm glad that there are people like yourself J.E. Bishop who fell (sic) obligated at a moments notice not only to judge others of different beliefs but to insult them as well. You could really help yourself if you bothered for a second to learn something about the party you so vehemently oppose instead of watching George Clooney movies and jumping on the bandwagon.

The same person rambles on in another post, after complaining how others had taken his comments out of context (although the above paragraph was an entire post):
"I guess I've got a chip on my shoulder, you would too if every time you went to the movies you had to see some dumb conservative redneck beating up a gay guy or yelling racial slurs, while the wise all-knowing liberal comes to the rescue."

Wow. He's hit the nail right on the head, there. Who isn't tired of seeing a goddamned liberal interfering with a redneck asshole's right to commit hate crimes in a movie theater?

Then there's this guy, who in one sentence says, "...I really dont (sic) think that you can argue that "ungodly" people are "godly" people when you put in gay rights. The Bible is black and white clear on gods (sic) views on gay activites (sic)," then goes on to say that "The brillance of our founding fathers is that they did not make it a law that you had to follow a certain religon (sic) to be a citizen or a member of the United States goverment (sic). They left it up to (sic) people's choice similar to what God does (sic) you have a choice to follow and believe or not." What's missing and implied from the end, I think, is "as long as you follow the beliefs of my religion."

Aside from the obvious, which is that each of these morons would fail 7th grade English comp, does anyone else see a problem here?

(EDIT)

Folks, you might start to notice (if that's possible, given my highly irregular posting) that I might start using terms harsher than "raving loony" and "moron" to describe, well--raving loonies and morons. I'm not a math whiz, but through personal discussions and media research I've added 2 and 2 and found this answer: Republican = Conservative = Fundamentalist, when it comes down to a vote. Sure, I believe that there are "fiscal Republicans"; those who think that the current administration will provide legislation that will best keep them (or help them become) wealthy. I also know that there are a large group of people who watch Fox News exclusively, and still believe that our glorious leader led us into Iraq due to her ties to 9/11 and WMD stockpiles. Ballots, however, aren't divided into issues. A vote for the prolonging of tax breaks for the wealthy is a vote to give the "religious" right a stronger foothold into your day-to-day existence. The fundamentalist agenda is the veil that keeps the goals of the RNC shielded from view. The issues are shown to be hard, honest work and the right to die of an undetected cancer, secure in the knowledge that God or George W. hisself is going to make you $$RICH$$ one day vs. free health care. The right to beat up "gays" (for the Bible tells them so) vs. the right of all Americans to be safe from persecution according to their lifestyle or beliefs. The right to use our military for corporate trough-lining vs. the assumption in every service member's mind that the U.S. government would never send them to die for anything less than the safety and security of the people they care about.

A year and a half ago, it was 51-49 THEM. I strongly urge everyone to write their representatives, get involved in local politics--do whatever you can to help take our country back from these backwards, murderous, racist, greedy people.

2006-03-29T22:19:00.000-08:00

The Crime(s) of the Century...

The nice gentleman from the OKCPD just left my room, taking my crack pipe with him.

That's the short version of the story. The long version:
I've been staying at Extended Stay America (West Reno Ave.) in Oklahoma City for the past nine days. As I was packing tonight for my flight home tomorrow, I found two things: 1) My CD case (containing 80 CDs) and CD player were missing; and 2) There was a crack pipe underneath a dresser drawer I removed in the search for my CDs. I called OKCPD just to ask if they wanted to do anything about it; they said they would send someone over. An officer arrived and took down the information and took the pipe, then we had a short discussion about where (vents, underneath drawers, inside toilets) and how often (very) paraphernalia is found in hotel rooms. He offered that had I not called the police and instead reported the theft to the hotel, if they found the crack pipe it could be said to have been in my possession. He said, "Of course, we'd run your info, look at your priors, see if there were any drug offenses (there aren't, incidentally)--so you wouldn't necessarily be looking at a warrant when you returned to Oklahoma City."

What's strange about the theft is that last Saturday morning, when I'm fairly certain the pilferage took place, my laptop was left untouched in the room. What's even stranger is that a handful of laundry quarters that I left in the nightstand drawer were stolen, too.

Most strange, though, is that I'm really too tired at the moment to get too worked up over this. I'm going to wait to contact the Hotel Commissioner (inside joke) tomorrow.

2006-03-28T21:12:00.000-08:00

It's not much, but it's a start...

Scott McClellan said in today's White House press briefing that "The President has surrounded himself with very smart and capable people. He has had a good team that has helped him accomplish many great things for the American people, particularly during a time of war." I would've suggested a rephrasing from "for the" to "for a very select few," but the focus of the briefing was on White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card's upcoming departure.

Senator Durbin suggested that the wrong man was leaving the administration, and many Republicans and Democrats alike seem to be scratching their heads, wondering what signal--if intended as a signal--this personnel change means, exactly. A man with nearly unanimous praise behind him is being replaced with a man whose only job skill consists of running up a deficit that this generation's grandchildren's grandchildren won't be able to dig their way out of.

For myself, the obvious question that no one is asking is: Is there anyone in the White House with brains enough to ask for a signed non-disclosure agreement from Mr. Card before he exits? It might be very interesting to hear what he has to say on the interview circuit.

2006-03-27T22:06:00.000-08:00

It's Your Daily Funnies in convenient textual format! Today's topics: "Consensual gay sex...bigamy, incest, and adultery..."

No, this isn't some recently uncovered report on the last Republican National Convention. The tip-off should've been that "kicking downed protesters in the back" wasn't included. No, the above was cut from today's White House Press Briefing, which (on a normal day) has to be some of the most humorous and revealing political information that one can find. You can find it at www.whitehouse.gov/news/briefings/. I've found that it's made more enjoyable to imagine "Tea For Two" playing while reading Scott McClellan's responses to questions from the White House press pool.

A few selected snippets (italics and emphases mine):

The New York Times reported today that in the weeks before the United States-led invasion of Iraq, "as the United States and Britain pressed for a second United Nations resolution condemning Iraq, President Bush's public ultimatum to Saddam Hussein was blunt: Disarm or face war. But behind closed doors, the president was certain that war was inevitable. During a private two-hour meeting in the Oval Office on Jan. 31, 2003, he made clear to Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain that he was determined to invade Iraq without the second resolution, or even if international arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapons, said a confidential memo about the meeting written by Mr. Blair's top foreign policy adviser and reviewed by The New York Times. "Our diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning," David Manning, Mr. Blair's chief foreign policy adviser at the time, wrote in the memo that summarized the discussion between Mr. Bush, Mr. Blair and six of their top aides."
(snip)
"Without much elaboration, the memo also says the president raised three possible ways of provoking a confrontation. Since they were first reported last month, neither the White House nor the British government has discussed them. "The U.S. was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in U.N. colours," the memo says, attributing the idea to Mr. Bush. "If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach." It also described the president as saying, "The U.S. might be able to bring out a defector who could give a public presentation about Saddam's W.M.D," referring to weapons of mass destruction. A brief clause in the memo refers to a third possibility, mentioned by Mr. Bush, a proposal to assassinate Saddam Hussein. The memo does not indicate how Mr. Blair responded to the idea.
Despite his optimism, Mr. Bush said he was aware that "there were uncertainties and risks," the memo says, and it goes on, "As far as destroying the oil wells were concerned, the U.S. was well equipped to repair them quickly, although this would be easier in the south of Iraq than in the north."

What? Could this true? Let's see how Mr. McClellan confirms or denies the contents of this memo:

Q: Is this memo correct?
MR. McCLELLAN: I don't -- I haven't seen that memo, Helen.
Q: You haven't seen The New York Times' memo?
MR. McCLELLAN: I've seen The New York Times.
Q: Well, let me just follow on that. There's nothing in there that suggests that this is not an accurate reflection of a conversation that the President had with Prime Minister Blair, right?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think that our public and private comments are fully consistent.
Q: And therefore the guts of this appears to be accurate?
MR. McCLELLAN: I don't know what you're talking about "guts" of. Let's be specific in what we're talking about.
Q: Well, comments made about the inevitability of war, the President's feeling about that at one --
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, the President was making numerous public comments at the time, David. You covered those comments. The use of force was a last option, but we recognized that it was necessary --
Q: It was his mind frame, though.
MR. McCLELLAN: -- to prepare and plan, and that's what we were doing at the time. And if you go and look at the public comments at the time, going back to late in the fall and winter period of 2002, on into 2003, we were making it very clear what the regime needed to do. And if it didn't do it, we were prepared to enforce the Security Council Resolution 1441, which called for serious consequences.
Q: It didn't call for going to war.

Mercifully, someone shifts the topic to illegal immigration:

Q: Scott, on the President's temporary guest worker program, in 2005, Mexican President Vicente Fox said, "Mexicans take jobs not even black people want to do." And today, Secretary -- HUD Secretary Alphonso Jackson elaborated on the comment saying, "We did not like what Vicente Fox said, but it has merits to it -- many of the jobs that Mexicans take coming across the border are the jobs that blacks, whites and Asians don't want." Last year when Vicente Fox made his statement, the administration backed away from it, denounced it and everything. Is the administration embracing that comment now, in light of the Cancun meeting?
MR. McCLELLAN: April, I haven't seen what Secretary Jackson said. And we did speak to that issue at the time, I believe, as you just pointed out. What we're doing is as we go into the discussions in Cancun, we'll be talking about the importance of all of us meeting our responsibilities when it comes to addressing immigration issues -- and that means border security, as well. All of us have responsibilities to secure our borders and to address these issues. And the President has a good relationship with President Fox. He looks forward to talking with him about this issue, among others.
Q: Those comments specifically?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry?
Q: Those comments --
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think we addressed that at the time, April.
Q: No, but will the President -- because there's a cloud over it now. The administration distanced itself from it, and here you have an African American department head embracing it.
MR. McCLELLAN: I haven't seen what he said today.
Q: Well, I have the statements if you would like to hear them.
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, you can share that with me, and I'll take a look at it later.

Back to Iraq:

Q: Scott, on Iraq, the Manning Memo also alleges that in this private meeting, the President told Prime Minister Blair that one option was to assassinate Saddam Hussein. Did the President really contemplate that as an option since it would be breaking U.S. law?
MR. McCLELLAN: Ed, this was a meeting that took place back in January of 2003. Even if I knew exactly what was said in that meeting, I wouldn't get into discussing private conversations between world leaders like this. Again, I reiterate to you, the comments that we were making publicly and privately are fully consistent with one another.
Q: Is the President concerned that the explosion today in Tal Afar -- that's one of the places he highlighted last week where things were turning around, there were bright spots, some of the good news --
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, you're asking me to make some sort of attack near Tal Afar --
Q: Yes, it's at least 30 people dead, 30 more wounded outside a recruitment center.
MR. McCLELLAN: I don't have all the facts surrounding that. I would also encourage you to -- if such an attack did take place there, look at what the motivations are. We know that the terrorists try to grab headlines, and that they target progress to try to gain attention and to try derail the transition to democracy. But I can't speak to this specific incident that just took place today. I don't know all the facts regarding that. I think that's best to direct to our military forces in Iraq. Go ahead.

DID THE PRESIDENT SAY THOSE THINGS ATTRIBUTED IN THE MEMO TO HIM, OR NOT, FER CRYIN' OUT LOUD??

Q: Scott, had the President decided on the 31st of January to go to war with Iraq regardless of whether there was a second U.N. resolution, and regardless of whether weapons of mass destruction were found?
MR. McCLELLAN: We were preparing in case it was going to be necessary, but we were continuing to pursue a diplomatic solution in that 2003 time period. And all the -- there was a lot of public comments made at the time, leading up to the decision to go in and use force, and remember, even 48 hours before we began Operation Iraqi Freedom, Saddam Hussein and his sons were given one final opportunity to leave the country and avoid serious consequences.
Q: So would you dispute what's in this memo, which says that, in fact, that decision had been made by January the 31st, and say that the President had not decided to go to war?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think I was asked that earlier, and I think I addressed that when I just said we were continuing to pursue a diplomatic course. You can go back and look at all the public comments at the time. The President made numerous public comments. You can look at other officials in the administration and what we were saying, but Saddam Hussein -- that's why I pointed back to -- remember, there's a December report, or interim report by the weapons inspector, the United Nations weapons inspector, and it showed that the regime was not coming clean. We said that they were continuing their pattern of non-cooperation at the time. And we also made it very clear that war was the last option, but if the regime was not going to come clean, then we were prepared to move forward and use force.
Q: Did the President talk about several ways to provoke a confrontation with Iraq?
MR. McCLELLAN: I think I addressed that question when Ed asked his question. Go ahead.

Ummm...so what's the timeline for a war with Iran?

Q: Scott, a two-part. I'd be very grateful if you could give us a clarification of the President's statement in Cleveland, "I made it clear, I'll make it clear again, that we will use military might to protect our ally, Israel." And my question: This does not mean that we will withhold such military might until after Israel is nuclear-bombed, does it?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, Les, I think that if you're bringing up the issue relating to Iran and its pursuit of nuclear weapons, we are pursuing a diplomatic solution to that matter. I think you're jumping way ahead of things at this point --
Q: No, the clarification -- we will protect Israel, we won't wait until after they're bombed.
MR. McCLELLAN: I don't think there's anything to clarify. The President has made that very clear before. They are a great friend and good ally, and the President --
Q: So it will be before they are bombed.
MR. McCLELLAN: -- has publicly expressed that view before.

Finally: The Naughty Bits.

Q: Two months before the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6 to 3 in the case of Lawrence vs. Texas, laws against sodomy are unconstitutional, Senator Rick Santorum told the AP, if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual gay sex in your home, then you have the right to bigamy, incest, and adultery, you have the right to anything. And my question: Does the President disagree with this Republican Senator and will he ask the Justice Department to oppose the pro-polygamy lawsuit, Bronson vs. Swenson, or not?
MR. McCLELLAN: Les, you might want to check with the Justice Department on what involvement they may have in any particular case. I don't know about --
Q: I want to know what the President -- does he agree with Santorum?
MR. McCLELLAN: I think you've heard the President's views.

(Following these exchanges are about two pages of immigration reform discussion that I'll attempt to make sense of tomorrow. I'm tired. Happy reading! Remember: All is well.)

2006-03-27T21:57:00.000-08:00

Rumsfeld to United States: "We are all in danger of failing as Good Germans."

O.K.; Rumsfeld didn't say that exactly. What he did say was, "If I were grading, I would say we probably deserve a 'D' or 'D+' as a country as to how well we're doing in the battle of ideas that's taking place in the world today." CNN reported that it was also suggested that reporters "get out and see what's going on." Word that White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan suggested that Helen Thomas "go first" could not be verified. With 80+ journalists killed or missing in Iraq since 2003, one probably shouldn't really be blamed for not wanting to get too close to "what's going on."

Apparently, the Western press is failing to report on the many significant, positive changes in the Middle East thatwe've instigated since beginning the War On Terror. For example, if the Taliban were still in control in Afghanistan, Abdul Rahman would have been executed on the spot for possession of a Bible; under the new regime, he was simply indicted for a death penalty offense, stirring the country up in a frenzy of Christian blood lust. Ah, progress!

Today, from the AP: "Abdul Rahman must be killed. Islam demands it," said senior Cleric Faiez Mohammed, from the nearby northern city of Kunduz. "The Christian foreigners occupying Afghanistan are attacking our religion." Several Muslim clerics have threatened to incite Afghans to kill Rahman if he is freed, saying that he is clearly guilty of apostasy and deserves to die.

Larry King and Paula Zahn, incidentally, both receive 'A's for the week due to their ignoring the non-tabloid-worthy news of Bush's most likely impending censure and written, official notes outlining his 7th grade social studies-level schemes designed to lead us into Iraq if, as was suspected, no non-conventional weapons were found there. Instead, both choose to devote the majority of their respective programs' alloted time to the Matthew Winkler killing, which occurred last Wednesday. It's true that some important questions were raised on the air:
"Have the kids visited mommy in jail?"
"Will the kids get to attend daddy's funeral?"
"Was Mary Winkler a victim of post-partum depression?"
"Can we expect to see more white-on-white crime, or was this just another isolated incident?"
Mr. Winkler is apparently the second caucasian (following Imette St. Guillen's murder in Manhatten) since Natalee Holloway's disappearance to become a victim of a violent crime. It's wonderful that at least two respected journalists in the liberal, anti-Bush, left-wing media--so used to falsely reporting daily setbacks in Iraq-- have to courage to commit to truly newsworthy stories, such as this murder where the confessed killer is in custody awaiting trial.

Satire aside, I feel for these victims and their families--make no mistake about that. I do doubt that, except in the case of Ms. Holloway's mother, neither of these victim's families are begging for the media spotlight that these crimes have inexplicably illuminated. Any of these crime stories are definitely local news, but nothing more.

2006-03-05T16:24:00.000-08:00

Corrections:

1) The United States invaded Iraq because of Iraq's direct and substantiated connections to the events of September 11, 2001.
2) Iraq is not on the verge of civil war.
3) Overall, despite the loss of nearly 2,300 U.S. military men and women, and civilians numbering in the ten thousands, the war on Iraq is going rather well.

Note to the DoD Public Affairs Office: My last name is slightly misspelled on this month's check: It should be an "o," not an "a." Thanks!

Story at http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060303/ts_nm/iraq_usa_newspapers_dc.

2006-03-05T15:57:00.000-08:00

Legislation for sale...

From the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) website:
"Through more than 2,000 meetings with members of Congress - at home and in Washington - AIPAC activists help pass more than 100 pro-Israel legislative initiatives a year. From procuring nearly $3 billion in aid critical to Israel's security, to funding joint U.S.-Israeli efforts to build a defense against unconventional weapons, AIPAC members are involved in the most crucial issues facing Israel."

Also, on their Current Agenda: "Standing By Israel to Ensure the Security of the Only Democracy in the Middle East."
Maybe they can strike that one out, now that the elections in Iraq and Palestine are over...

According to the Federal Elections Commission:
A domestic subsidiary of a foreign corporation may not establish a federal political action committee (PAC) to make federal contributions if:
The foreign parent corporation finances the PAC's establishment, administration, or solicitation costs; or
Individual foreign nationals:
Participate in the operation of the PAC;
Serve as officers of the PAC;
Participated in the selection of persons who operate the PAC; or
Make decisions regarding PAC contributions or expenditure.

I'm not attempting to state that AIPAC's activities are illegal, and this is probably oversimplified, but what, though, is prohibiting American-Palestinians from establishing an American-Palestinian PAC; American-Iranians from establishing an American-Iranian PAC, etc.?? What, given the nature of even our most conscientious lawmakers, would prohibit them from accepting contributions from such an organization devoted to furthering the goals of it's respective country?

Special note to sensitive types: My opinions expressed here should not be construed as being anti-Semitic, even though anyone who attempts to argue the legality of a PAC devoted to Israel will most likely be labeled as such.

My personal opinion is that PACs, in general, should draw ire and suspicion from any average citizen. That any of these people can march into your congressman's or senator's office with check in hand and command an audience should at least shake what little trust you might have in your elected official's desire to do what's asked for by his or her constituents.