Saturday, March 19, 2005


Only because my friend Erik egged me on will I reprint this from his blog to mine. I wrote it to Pat Robertson's university:

I'd like to thank you for taking in John Ashcroft as a teacher. Ibelieve it shows your commitment to support the economy and keeppeople away from the unemployment lines. While Mr. Ashcroft may haveshown himself to be a liar, a hypocrite, a perjurer and a politicalopportunist (who would stop at nothing to further the agenda of anyonewho outranked him, thereby making him a toady as well), it is withglee that I regard your hiring of him. Better the enemy I know at apre-fab "university" in plain sight then then the enemy I know somewhereout in the ether where I can't see him. So, thank you for putting himback in the bulls-eye of the media. Now, I can continue to hear of hisstrident, anti-American remarks about how we Liberals are ruining thecountry and making it a Godless place for you Chosen People who knowoh-so-much more than we about how God wants this country to be run.Thank you and God Bless You as your bosses make a mockery of a dilemmathat most likely started out as a simple question: what gives you theright to call someone like me a transgressor merely because I think orbelieve differently than you?

Friday, March 18, 2005


found this just now. it checks in on gannon/guckert/gurniquet. doonesbury takes it on as a comment on fake news. a good one. because this story really is about the administration creating news (which is propaganda and illegal).
The following newspaper quote
which includes:
"Reassuring his audience at Pensacola Junior College that he wasn't proposing to dismantle the system, Bush said younger workers will continue to get Social Security checks when they retire.
"I just can't guarantee how big it's going be," he said. "There's not enough money to pay the promises - I'll just tell you that.
(AP) President Bush walks from the residence, Friday, March 18, 2005, as he departs the White House for...Full Image"We're not going to be able to keep the promises unless we're willing to have extraordinarily high taxes on the people coming up, or significant benefit cuts.""

Begs the question: when did the President assume full responsibility for Social Security"s future? He has blamed its future failure on Democrats, Socialists, Tax Hikers (read that quote above again) and I can't remember who else. Read the quote. Without "extraordinarily high taxes" or "significant benefit cuts", but the opposite is exactly what he's done. He gave a tax break that benefited the upper 5% earners of our nation over everyone else (and it wasn't based on dollar numbers, but the ratio of dollars in terms of annual income. In other words, if you made $1 million you got back 50-70% more back per dollar than I did grossing $35,000. being adult and single, i can't withhold anything other than the skin on my back. I don't complain about that.
What I complain about tonight is the fact that the more I earn, the more this government smiles on me. If I earn over $200,000 I am looked upon as an asset to the party and I am rewarded when I give. If I earn less than that, then I am looked on merely as an asset to the economy. It doesn't matter if I support the cause or I give to Charity or if I donate my time to a worthy community cause. Many of these that I might do I find I can't legally do and get a tax cut, because the receipt isn't honored or the group is suspect. I am an asset to the Economy, only because no matter how poor I might be I will still have to purchase goods consistently. And the $200,000-ers like that. They own the businesses that I spend money in. They count on me to make them a profit. I am taxed more for not being wealthy and they rely on me to balloon their bank accounts.
Back to When Did Bush Assume Full Responsibility For Social Security's Future?:
First, Bush wanted to dismantle it completely. He said private accounts were the way to go. He said SS would be defunct by 2010. Then, it became 2020. Then, he was faced with 2052 by SS's estimation. Then, it was put at 2048. This last is the most accepted date. But this date will happen only if we don't find a way to put funds back into it. What you might not know is that this administration has borrowed so heavily from it in order to finance the Iraq War that there is no way they could pay it back in the next 15 years if we went through a bull market and the Dow climbed to 50,000. Of course, this administration wants us to believe that the only way to save SS is to de-exist it. If I owe you a new girlfriend, because I stole your last one...well, I might still be there next Tuesday to tip a brew like we might have used to, but only if you can prove we used to.
Back to cutting benefits significantly, wouldn't it be more significant if all politicians above the state level were to tell all of us that they are wealthy enough that they don't need medical benefits at the taxpayer's cost? or that they can give up retirement and Social Securities benefits, because they are so set for life? If one congressman were to come forward and tell me that he or she is disengaging from the public benefits process, but still willing to pay into it as a proper American, I would most likely vote for him or her. I mean, what happened to "the meek shall inherit the earth" or "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"? Did "the buck stops here" have a literal meaning as it sat on Truman's desk so many decades ago? Do we give and give and not receive? Is there life after Sponge Bob's outing?

Jim?Jeff Needs A Hug

As a first post, I must admit that I only do this while imbibing. I promise to never write while sober...because writing sober is like fucking alone: over too quick and no one to talk to but myself. by the way (not that I condone this type of behavior), Jeff/Jim's email address at his website is In case you wanted to send him a hug or something.
Below is my letter to him that I sent two days ago. I felt he needed solace and succor. Having viewed his other websites, I opted for sarcasm and rancor in case cyber-touching him might result in something contagious (sarcasm is the ultimate antidote to the disease called "holier-than-thou"). The letter follows:
"so, how does it really feel to slam the very sexuality you are tied to by nature? or were you just moonlighting on those websites and advertisements? and what exactly do you mean when you say that you are"on hiatus" from the white house press room? do you seriously think you would ever be invited back now that you have been shown to be a liar and a shill? hiatus means "on a break" or "vacation". you have been shunned, turned away, disassociated from, given the heave-ho. a better career move might be to challenge tonya harding to a wrestling match, although i'd be leery of betting my money on you. while you have a very creepy quality about you (i.e. you change your name, get by the secret service "somehow", toss sophmoric questions that make even the biased cringe in their argyles, then whine about the unfairness of your outing [in both senses of the word]), which should make even the stoutest of heart unwilling to touch you in fear of some loathsome legion attaching itself to their souls, ms. harding has enough similar qualities in terms of shameless self-promoting and ability to sell oneself's bedrock identity in return for an extra 15 minutes worth of fame to actually be able to grapple with you. think about it while you slip further into your chasm of self-demise."
I don't particularly wish Jeff/Jim ill-will. After all, we all might be willing to shuck our souls for a chance to bump ugly with an unnamed White House official and listen to his inebriated pillow talk. Not that I could prove this is why Jim/Jeff was allowed access to the President, but it makes me wonder how Jim/Jeff made it so far into the inner sanctum of a very paranoid administration. This is a presidency, mind you, shrouded in secrecy, shadows, mirrors and doublespeak. These people trust nothing and no one. They routinely undermine freedom of information, freedom of speech, access by the media. Yet, somehow, a male prostitute (who advertised as an escort on websites searching for gay military men or gay men with a military fetish) was granted a daily pass to the White House Press Room for over two years. He routinely lobbed biased questions at the Press Secretary, which favored the President. He, also, was within feet of the President on multiple occasions and allowed to ask the questions directly. This is a male prostitute using a fake name and posing as a reporter for an illegitimate news source.
The Secret Service says that, as far as they're concerned, he was as valid as any reporter (even though they knew he was using an assumed name while no one else was). The Press Secretary said he was unaware of Jim/Jeff's true identity until notified after the brouhaha hit the internet waves, then subsequently admitted he "may have known his name earlier". Karl Rove denied knowing about Jim/Jeff until recently when he admitted he may have been given a memo some time previous to jim/Jeff's outing that talked about Jim/Jeff's true identity. And neither of these gentlemen nor the Secret Service thought it odd that a "reporter" should want to hide his true name and/or nature.
Since then, Jim/Jeff has decried his outing, continued to revile the homosexual agenda and now publishes the "questions" he woulda asked if he weren't "on hiatus from the White House" on his own website.
If nothing else, it makes for amusing reading. And, no, I don't have his website address handy, but all you have to do is move you little finger, squeeze your little Google...and you can change the world.
'Nuff for now. Beer calling. NCAA tournament calling. Stanford's down by ten and I love it.