PhugIt

2003-09-13T01:01:00.000-04:00

A tribute in color

Okay, pretend this site always had a white background.

Now, imagine you just clicked here after months of loyal readership and found a black background much to your surprise. Yes, yes, I know the background has been black basically from the outset. Just go with this.

Anyhow, look at the black as a tribute to the man in black - Johnny Cash - for the next few days.

Johnny Cash 2-26-1932 to 9-12-2003

2003-08-14T18:12:00.000-04:00

Blackout babies

Looks like folks will be makin’ babies tonight in northeast America and southeast Canada.

Yep, it’s blackout time again.

Sometime during the afternoon of August 14, something happened somewhere and the power went out over a couple hundred miles throughout that region. (Forgive the vagueness. This is still an ongoing event. Obviously, the blackout did not hit western Pennsylvania - PhugIt’s home territory. Or as we like to call it, The State with Electricity.)

That means people will stay home since there might not be many places open due to a lack of power. They’ll get some red wine, have a few drinks and make sweet, sweet lovin’. Or some people might get piss drunk on tequila and get to humpin’. Either way, there’s gonna be some babies shooting out of some wombs come nine months from now.

2003-08-14T18:11:00.000-04:00

Darkness coverage

Doesn’t it seem a bit odd to interrupt network television broadcasts and dominate cable news shows with stories about a blackout from Detroit to New York City since the people most hampered by it don't have the energy to run their television sets?

2003-08-14T02:39:00.000-04:00

Slappin’ the donkey

We can only hope Al Sharpton meant the Democratic Party.

Please God, let that be the case.

During a recent debate between Democratic Party presidential candidates in Philadelphia, Sharpton stated, “If you want to move a donkey, you have to slap the donkey. I intend, in the next eight months, to slap this donkey all the way from Iowa to the last primary. I intend to slap this donkey until it stands up for the American people. I intend to slap this donkey until this donkey kicks George Bush right out of the White House.”

Logic would conclude Sharpton intended the statement as a message of his intention to spur debate in the Democratic Party - one with a donkey as its national symbol. However, pervert innuendo could create another image from those words.

And - just as a hunch - the average PhugIt reader probably knows something about pervert innuendo. (We’ve done studies.)

From that perspective, the image of Sharpton kicking President Bush out of the White House by slapping his donkey across the country falls somewhere along the spectrum between comical and mind-bendingly disturbing.

Fortunately for Sharpton, the Democrats never adopted a monkey as their symbol or he would be in prison, since ‘slapping the monkey’ would be a more widely recognized reference to a certain act by males. At least the donkey reference kept it in the realm of where a person would need to have at least some perversion on the mind to use the alternative meaning.

2003-08-05T22:03:00.000-04:00

Sutor for Governor

Larry Flynt won’t let a background in porn stop him. Gray Davis won’t let an apparent lack of ability hinder him. Dozens of Californians won’t let obscurity hamper their case.

All of those individuals have faced their obstacles and at least made some initial effort in pursuing the position of California governor.

So, I will not let my obstacle stop me.

I am not a resident of California. I have spent about a grand total of one hour in the state roaming in the desert somewhere off Route 15 between Las Vegas and Los Angeles just north of the Mojave National Preserve. Why should I let that stop me?

My lack of residency does not make me any less qualified than a bunch of other people who will likely meet the standard of bucking up $3,500 and collecting 65 signatures in order to get their name on the state’s upcoming governor recall election ballot. I am just as fit as any individual whether basically unknown or one of the country’s greatest pornographers.

That is why I demand my spot on the ballot. And that is why I demand my spot in this political circus.

And remember my slogan: Who the hell is he? Ahhh, just PhugIt ... vote for Sutor in 2003.

2003-08-05T22:01:00.000-04:00

Hussein / Taylor ... Goin’ Wild for Asylum

Forget Lennox Lewis.

If the heavyweight boxing champion wants to retire, so be it. The boxing community will do fine without him because there is a world class fight waiting to occur.

Right now, Liberian dictator Charles Taylor is playing a shell game with the world by repeatedly suggesting he would give up power if he could get asylum. Then he backtracks in a desperate attempt to cling to power for another week or so. Meanwhile, in a desert far, far away, Saddam Hussein is in hiding - no doubt pondering his mistake of being a brutal, oppressive killer without being an ally of the United States at the same time.

He only understood half of that equation - unlike the folks in Saudi Arabia.

Anyhow, who knows? Maybe he would also consider living out the rest of his life in a palace owned by some other third-world dictator. Maybe not.

Either way, both men honestly have to know they are screwed with no real way out. Basically the odds fall into the pretty-damn-certain range they could soon be captured in some way with an international war crimes trial looming as a possible outcome. That’s where boxing promoter Don King could enter the picture, as he promotes Goin’ Wild for Asylum at the MGM Grand or a north Africa desert crossroads ... who the hell cares?

Here’s the plan, put the two men into a boxing ring together.

The loser gets a trial where international prosecutors will spell out the graphic nature of their inhumanity to their fellow man. A likely life sentence or death sentence would follow.

Meanwhile, the winner would get exile and asylum in some country where the person would live like a king except for the ability to give the go-kill-50-people-for-laughs command.

2003-08-05T22:00:00.000-04:00

Brother can you spare a whole lot?

Damn, Mike Tyson wasn’t already bankrupt.

Who knew?

Honestly, it just seemed like something that would have happened to the former boxing heavyweight champion a while ago. Didn’t it?

It’s a pretty standard story: Boxer wins title, makes obscene amounts of money, weds beautiful woman, beats said woman, loses said woman, loses said title, goes to prison (possibly repeatedly), discovers he has no money. It just seemed like Tyson would have already completed the circuit during his swirl of madness.

Maybe Tyson just didn’t want to lose all his money MC Hammer-style to the tune of tens of millions. Apparently, he was on a path to trump that number with serious aggression. Tyson just filed for bankruptcy after reportedly losing $300-$400 million.

At least nobody can repossess his tattoo ink.

2003-07-30T04:05:00.000-04:00

Gambling on corpse counts

Thankfully, no futures trader will have to utter the words, “I can’t believe I lost all that money because those damn terrorists did not kill enough people by the end of the quarter.”

In a rare relocation of a collective backbone, Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle and other members of his party actually stood up to a recent Pentagon proposal that put the government close to endorsing a gambling on death policy that could have led to such a comment. The idea was to setup a futures market based around potential terrorist attacks or other events like the possible assassination of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat.

It was recently stopped, though.

If Pentagon officials had their way, people would have basically wagered on the likelihood of an event occurring within a certain time.

The idea was for the Pentagon to gather information in order to possibly predict future events based basically upon seeing where the smart money went. Aside from all other arguments about devaluing human life to a gambling formula and the idea of profiting directly from death, the proposal forced the question of how bad is the current state of intelligence gathering if the military wanted to rely on 10,000 online investors to help form policy?

Sources:

MSNBC

YAHOO

CNN

WBAL

2003-07-30T04:00:00.000-04:00

Oh yeah, they played a game, too, by the way

Okay, NFLHS.com did not want me to write a story about the skydivers who jumped into Hersheypark Stadium and the helicopter that maneuvered above the field prior to the Big 33 football game. That was too bad because those events provided more entertainment than the actual high school all-star football game between Ohio and Pennsylvania.

They just wanted a story about the game.

So, go read about Ohio’s one-sided victory here.

2003-07-30T03:58:00.000-04:00

One less link

Probably nobody noticed the reduction of this site’s links by one in recent days. But it happened. I thought I found an interesting site that approached news from outside the mainstream and provided links to interesting perspectives. So I linked to it.

I do not believe a link means a 100 percent endorsement of a site. It’s just meant to provide easy access to sources that might feature material of interest to people who visit a site, like PhugIt. This recently deleted site, which shall go nameless here, was an aggregation website that seemed to raise some legitimate questions about current political situations and media negligence. Some of the stuff was farfetched and slanted toward one side. But there were some interesting questions raised.

Plus, it had a good conspiracy vibe going.

However, it also recently featured a few articles that seemed basically anti-Jewish in nature just to be anti-Jewish. Most notably, one seemed to basically support the idea that a Zionist conspiracy has controlled American politics, the media and the military since around World War I. Much of the supposed proof operated under the idea that if any Jew had a hand in making a policy, then it was part of a Jewish plot. Of course, it also explained in detail the belief that the 9-11 attacks were all part of the conspiracy. That was the heart of the story that suggested if somebody did not believe the ideas then they were just lemmings.

We here at PhugIt are all for digging beyond the easy answers. The same goes for reading about good conspiracy theories from UFOs to Skull and Bones. (By the way, Lee Harvey Oswald did not act alone and there is life on other planets ... but those are just opinions.) We also believe there is a lot of wagging the dog going on with the Bush Administration. But those towers sure as hell fell down. That wasn’t faked.

But back to the story.

The article just seemed hate-filled, though, and based around the idea of assuming a conspiracy and then looking for any supposed evidence whatsoever to prove it.

Unlike providing a sidebar link, this site provided a direct link to the article, which seemed to imply support for the ideas. The site and the anonymous author can support those ideas all they want. PhugIt also has the right to not endorse them.

This is not suggesting the work should be censored in any way. PhugIt just does not want to give the publication a hey-go-see-this-kind of plug.

Plus, it is not meant to be some thin-skinned reaction to hurt feelings. We’ll make fun of anybody here at PhugIt - Jews, blacks, whites, Asians, Muslims, conservatives, liberals, men, women ... whoever. I’m Slovak in my heritage. Slovak culture has had so little influence that it does not even have a stereotype associated with it - not even something like Irish drinking jokes or cliche Indian accents.

2003-07-17T23:04:00.000-04:00

Word count

President Bush only spoke 16 words, so what could that matter?

People cannot say anything that changes society in so few words, right? It’s not like Neil Armstrong spoke for the citizens of all the world when he stated, "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind." That was only 11 words, so it must have really been irrelevant.

And Dr. Martin Luther King did not define the Civil Rights movement with the words, "I have a dream." Four words ... that’s barely talking at all. Then there is the Bible. That cannot matter because its first line is just a little, bitty sentence: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

Of course Armstrong did speak for mankind, King did define a cultural movement, and the Bible does matter.

So do Bush’s 16 words.

However, courage-deficient hawks want to dismiss Bush’s likely deception due in part to its shortness. Maybe the most impressive point was that Bush, who sometimes seems to mispronounce at least 16 words in a speech, was able to string together the sentence, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa," during his State of the Union Address.

The point was clear. Bush used the quote to paint a picture of Hussein attempting to restart a nuclear program. Now, it appears the statement was inaccurate at best or a lie at worst.

Supporters rallying around the president now suggest the statement was not a main cause for the war. Somebody would basically have to believe the mentioning of nuclear weapons in the most important annual speech given by anybody on the planet is irrelevant to support that argument.

Bush backers also attempt to brush aside the statement by reducing its value to a word count, as if that is the deciding factor of a comment’s value. "It is 16 words, and it has become an enormously overblown issue," said national security adviser Condoleezza Rice on CNN.

In case Rice was wondering, the United States Constitution Amendment (the 13th) that freed an entire race of people counted less than 50 words - just like the First and Second Amendments.

2003-07-17T23:02:00.000-04:00

At least he said, “I’m sorry”

Hopefully some British Prime Minister - circa 2200 - will make the apology current Prime Minister Tony Blair should have made on Thursday.

During an address inside the United States Capital, Blair told a story about how the British burned the United States Library of Congress in 1814. He then quipped, “I know this is kind of late, but sorry.”

Those in attendance laughed.

However, the statement probably did not go over as big with some grieving parents who recently bought coffins for their soldier children thanks to the combined policy of Blair and United States President George W. Bush based on ulterior motives and verbal shell games.

Maybe some British leader can pick up the slack for him two centuries from now.

2003-07-16T12:49:00.000-04:00

A title suggestion

Maybe Ann Coulter can just call her next book Naaa, Naaa, Naaa, Naaa, Naaa, I Can’t Hear You, Liberals Have Cooties.

The conservative shrill machine could also place a picture of herself on the cover with her fingers in her ears.

It basically would make an appropriate follow-up to her recent release entitled Treason. In the book, Coulter takes 355 pages to explain what she perceives as the evils of liberalism, as she compares them to her view of patriotism through examples like former Senator Joseph McCarthy’s approach to shaping America. It was known as McCarthyism, which basically amounted to him attempting to quarantine people he did not think were as American as he was.

Coulter, of course, calls McCarthyism a liberal creation that never really existed.

She stated as much in a recent 10-question interview with Time.

Coulter also took the time to pay tribute to McCarthy by posting a picture of herself standing by his grave at www.anncoulter.com.

During the interview, Coulter relied on her usual mix of hyperbole, intolerance, and general confusion that for some reason everybody in the world does not think like a middle class, white, Christian, conservative American. When asked about liberals’ approach to the war on terror, Coulter stated, “They are rooting against America.”

Coulter, who can cram as much foolishness and narrow-mindedness into a square inch of text or second of speech as anybody, continued. Time asked her: “Do you see a way forward for Americans to come together politically, as a country?”

She answered: “Oh, yes. I do. The Democratic Party has got to go away. It's got to just hang up its stirrups. I really think it has functionally gone the way of the Whigs, and it's just a matter of enough Democrats figuring that out.”

Maybe that could be her opening paragraph to Naaa, Naaa, Naaa, Naaa, Naaa, I Can’t Hear You, Liberals Have Cooties.

2003-07-11T14:39:00.000-04:00

Always learn the local hunting rules

Randall Simon apparently forgot to read his Wisconsin pork product hunting manual.

The Pittsburgh Pirate went over his bag limit during a recent hunt at Miller Park - the home of the Milwaukee Brewers.

And his second mount might cost him.

Simon, during a recent game, stood in the dugout as four individuals ran past him in a race. They were dressed as an Italian sausage, a bratwurst, a Polish sausage and a hot dog, respectively. Simon decided to tap the Italian sausage - known in the real world as 19-year-old Mandy Block - with a baseball bat.

She fell.

Block also bumped into the hot dog - a.k.a. Veronica Piech, 21.

They fell to the ground, leading to possibly the best quote of all from this event tailor-made for one-liners. “I just looked over and saw our wieners in a wad," said Brewers manager Ned Yost in a quote found at The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

Block took the incident in good nature and asked for nothing more than the bat Simon used. Simon, who received a $432 fine for disorderly conduct, would have been okay if he just bagged the one pork product. However, he harvested a second running link.

And Piech showed no sense of humor concerning the joke gone wrong.

Piech, speaking to the MJS, stated, “From the moment this has happened, I've had utter disgust with the situation. I did not think it was a funny practical joke. He could have ended my career just like somebody could end his."

She also added: "It's definitely more of an emotional toll than I ever would have realized. It's a dangerous job. But out of the 100 things you plan for, you wouldn't plan for that."

If the idea of somebody worrying about their career as a running hot dog was not pathetic enough, Piech’s ‘emotional toll’ statement screams of an immature personality. It also resembles the statements one would expect from somebody already plotting a lawsuit.

And that’s why Simon’s second harvest might cost him.

2003-07-11T14:37:00.000-04:00

19 years of change

Terry Wallis still mentally lives in a world in which Saddam Hussein is an American ally, Michael Jackson’s skin tone is black and the Detroit Tigers have the best team in baseball.

In July 1984 - the year the Tigers last won the World Series - Wallis nearly died in a car wreck. He then slipped into a 19-year coma that just ended. Wallis came out of the darkness and actually started to speak.

However, he has no knowledge of anything that happened during basically the last two decades.

He is presumably okay and well rested.

2003-07-11T14:33:00.000-04:00

Just follow the instructions

Go to Google.com.

Type ‘weapons of mass destruction’ into the search box without the quotes.

Then click the “I’m Feeling Lucky” button.

2003-07-09T13:27:00.000-04:00

The Cancelled Nation

The liberal media elite seem like the top candidate.

Members of The Savage Nation often use that group as their basic default scapegoat. Whoever they select, those individuals will certainly find somebody else to blame for The Savage Nation getting cancelled on MSNBC other than the racist, homophobe, pseudo-intellectual, loud-mouthed, scared little man who did it to himself.

On Saturday, Michael Savage (a.k.a The Savage Weiner) did a little skit about airlines and then asked for calls.

He then received a prank.

There was nothing obscene or threatening about the call. It was just a standard prank that all live talk show hosts eventually face. And Savage, who uses the pseudonym in place of his given last name - Weiner, faced it by showing his juvenile mentality.

After asking the caller if he was a sodomite, The Savage Weiner continued by stating, “Oh, you’re one of the sodomites. You should only get AIDS and die, you pig. How’s that? Why don’t you see if you can sue me, you pig. You got nothing better than to put me down, you piece of garbage. You have got nothing to do today, go eat a sausage and choke on it.”

Eventually he said gay people mean nothing to him and asked for another caller who had a bad night at the bathhouse.

He could have made the same kind of tirade against minorities, women or just about any other group he does not like. The caller just happened to hit his homosexual bigotry button.

MSNBC didn’t seem to like his comment, which they are entitled to do. The Savage Weiner is equally entitled to express his opinions. However, MSNBC is also allowed to notice an obvious difference between hard-hitting and challenging opinions and Savage’s just flat-out hatred.

And that was exactly what the company did.

The network fired him.

It was just a simple case of a boss not liking something work-based that an employee did. Nothing more, nothing less.

However, The Weiner Nation rallied around him, passing blame to just about anybody else other than Savage for the incident.

Sources

Dynamic Truth message board

MSNBC

Free Republic

2003-07-09T13:23:00.000-04:00

Here nuclear material, where are you, where are you?

Oops, our bad.

Those three words form a basic summarization of what the Bush administration stated earlier this week. The group finally admitted what many people have known for a while - documents used by the British government to make the claim that Saddam Hussein attempted to get uranium from Africa were exaggerated.

Forged is another word for them.

The problem got worse when Bush mentioned the supposed evidence in his State of the Union address. “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa," said Bush in a quote taken from a recent Washington Post article.

The fact such a blatant falsehood made it into the president’s most important annual speech is disgraceful if somebody believes it was just an oversight. If that’s what somebody believes, then they should suggest Bush fire his fact checkers.

However, it’s just a blatant lie if people believe Bush was merely throwing out any collection of scary thoughts in order to put enough fear into the American people so they would support his war.

PhugIt votes for it being a lie.

Either way, the people who served and died in Iraq certainly deserve more than the equivalent of a shoulder shrug when it is shown one of the most important supposed reasons for going to war was a lie. They won’t get it, though.

They could not even get straight talk.

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer stated, The president's statement was based on the predicate of the yellow cake [uranium] from Niger. So given the fact that the report on the yellow cake did not turn out to be accurate, that is reflective of the president's broader statement," in a quote taken from the BBC website.

That’s a lot of spin talk.

Loosely translated it means they lied.

2003-07-03T03:19:00.000-04:00

Bring them on

At least President Bush stopped short of challenging Iraqi guerillas to a steel cage match.

He did not stop by much, though.

Recently, when discussing guerilla attacks by Iraqis on American soldiers, Bush stated, "There are some who feel like that conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is bring them on. We have the force necessary to deal with the situation."

Bring them on? Bring them on?

When did Bush and his speechwriters decide it was in America’s best interest for him to start discussing foreign policy issues like a pro wrestler would do? A comment like that is usually the prelude to some steroid-infested guys pretending to beat the crap out of each other on a pay-per-view.

It’s not a comment one usually excepts from the leader of the most powerful nation in the history of mankind.

Maybe he just thought a statement like, “These attacks are unfortunate. We will do everything in our power to stop them and protect the men and women risking their lives in Iraq,” would not quite appeal to his target audience. Maybe he just can’t form opinions beyond the bumper sticker mentality.

Most importantly, maybe he just knew how damn easy it is to challenge somebody to a fight when you’re thousands of miles from the battlefield.

2003-06-30T23:38:00.000-04:00

Hot dogs, get your hot dogs

William ‘The Refrigerator’ Perry could lose a chunk of his body the size of Takeru Kobayashi and still be overweight.

Perry, a former Chicago Bear from the 1980s, tips the scales at over 400 pounds. Kobayashi weighs about 130 pounds. Logic would suggest Perry could just about eat Kobayashi for a meal.

Naturally, logic would also suggest betting on the big man in a food eating contest.

But the odds are Perry will find himself nowhere near Kobayashi during Nathan's Famous Fourth of July International Hot Dog Eating Contest. In order to participate in the event, Perry won a qualifier by eating 12 hot dogs in 12 minutes.

"This gives William Perry the chance to follow in the footsteps of other two-sport stars like Bo Jackson and Deion Sanders," said Richard Shea, spokesman for Nathan's Famous, in a statement at the International Federation of Competitive Eating website. "Competitive eating requires a unique combination of athleticism and discipline, and only time will tell if Perry's talent on the gridiron will carry over to Coney Island."

However, Kobayashi eats a dozen dogs for a warm-up.

Last year, the Japanese eating machine set a world record and won the Nathan’s event - sponsored by the IFOCE - by cramming 50.5 hot dogs and buns into his body in 12 minutes.

Still, Perry has his supporters - most notably the folks at BetWWTS.com.

That offshore betting service will sponsor Perry in the gorging festival. It will also look to make some money through one of mankind’s noblest pursuits - gambling. Through the service, people can bet on The Fridge or other competitors to win. Other types of bets exist, like whether or not Perry will eat more hot dogs than the New England Patriots scored points when the Bears dropped them 46-10 in Super Bowl XX.

To put the gambling line into perspective, the site lists the competition under its special events category. Currently, that section also features lines on the Tour de France. It also features odds on which city will host the 2012 Summer Olympics. The list includes some of the world’s most well known cities: New York City, Paris, London, Toronto, Rio de Janeiro, Moscow, Havana, Madrid and others.

Right now, the favorites in all three are Kobayashi, Lance Armstrong and Paris.

2003-06-30T23:33:00.000-04:00

Other sites

It’s time to pimp my own work again.

This link is to a story at NFLHS.com about the recent Pennsylvania Scholastic Football Coaches Association East West All-Star Game.

This link and this link, too, will take you to a pair of stories at USAHockey.com, concerning the group’s recent coaching symposium held in Pittsburgh, PA.

The events might not lend themselves to smart-assed commentary like at PhugIt. However, they do lend themselves to somebody sending me a piece of paper that I trade for a series of green pieces of paper at the bank. I then exchange those pieces of paper for guitar strings, chicken wings, gasoline, beer, and other items.

2003-06-30T23:30:00.000-04:00

Harvest time

There’s a little Bruce Springsteen, a little Bob Dylan, and a little Andy Kaufman mentioned in this review of Neil Young’s June 25, 2003 show at Merriweather Post Pavilion near Washington, DC.

It’s at Thrasher’s Wheat. Check it out.

2003-06-27T18:31:00.000-04:00

Dean’s victory dance

Howard Dean just needs to make sure nobody else votes in 2004 except Internet-connected Wisconsin residents.

If so, the former Vermont governor might find himself as the next President of the United States.

Recently, Dean won two polls that fell somewhere between “huh? what?” and “useless as tits on a bull” on the political spectrum. Less than two weeks ago, Dean won a Wisconsin straw poll among Democratic presidential candidates by collecting a whopping 203 votes to only 50 for runner-up Massachusetts Senator John Kerry.

That probably did not even make both eligible to run for Milwaukee dogcatcher.

On June 27, MoveOn.org announced Dean also took top honors in its online survey of the nine official Democratic presidential nominees, who unfortunately seem to be basically running for the honor of getting stomped by President George W. Bush in 2004, barring some drastic economic plunge or the appearance of a candidate with the balls to speak all-out against the Bush administration. Dean received 139,360 of 317,647 total votes cast during just over a 48-hour span.

That accounted for 43.87 percent of the vote and put him ahead of second-place finisher Dick Gephardt.

However, a candidate needed 50 percent to receive an endorsement from the organization.

2003-06-27T18:29:00.000-04:00

‘Racial integrity, as well as peace and good order requires laws providing for the separation of the two races.’
— STROM THURMOND during his 1948 presidential campaign (Quote found at MSNBC.com)

Yes, people can change their minds over the years and realize the errors of their ways. People who want to hail the death of former United States Senator Strom Thurmond as a great loss for America will repeatedly make that claim during the next few days.

They will also point to how Thurmond, who died at 100 on June 26, was the first southern Senator to hire a black staff member. The same individuals will mention how he supported the creation of a national holiday for Martin Luther King, Jr. Actions like those seem along the lines of somebody making repeated nigger jokes and then saying, “But I have a lot of black friends.”

They just seem insincere.

Thurmond did not just make his racist political statements when he was a young man discovering the world before he understood much. He made those campaign comments in his mid 40s when people’s beliefs are usually well developed. He fought against Civil Rights until the age when most people retire. Plus, he was not just some member on the fringe of a small group. Thurmond ran for President of the United States on a platform designed to separate black people from what he viewed as the superior white race.

Literally, one of Thurmond’s major campaign goals was to make sure black people could not attend the same schools, drink from the same water fountains, or use the same bathrooms as white people. The fact people want to gloss over his stance with a that-was-then mentality is disgraceful. The same goes for people like West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd.

The racism does not mean every point the person makes is automatically invalid. People can have completely legitimate points on war, taxes, the environment and dozens of other subjects. They’re still racists, though.

Saying it was a sign of the times is no excuse.

By 1948, Jackie Robinson broke Major League Baseball’s color barrier, thousands of blacks served America in World War II, and many white people took up the cause of equal rights. Other people with courage obviously had started to learn the message. Thurmond was not a man of his convictions for running as a segregationist. He was a racist.

His racism was not a sign of the times. It was a character flaw.

2003-06-27T18:10:00.000-04:00

HyperRust Never Sleeps

Hmmmmmm, I wonder when my site received a plug at HyperRust.org. I’m going to guess it was sometime near 9:00 a.m. on June 18. Before that date and time, PhugIt’s site tracking report looked just like a string of ones and zeros when viewed on an hourly basis.

During the 8th hour of June 18, nobody visited the site. PhugIt then received 30 visits the following hour thanks to a mention at the unofficial Neil Young site that linked to my review of his recent Pittsburgh-area show.

Overall, it took less than two weeks for PhugIt’s visitor number to jump from 990 to around 2,700. In contrast, it took approximately three months for just under 1,000 people to check out the site from its start until the plug.

Thanks again to the readers of HyperRust and Thrasher’s Wheat, which also provided a link. Also, thanks to one reader who explained how Sun’s ‘singing’ was done with the megaphone during the show. Like the rest of the actors on stage, she lip-synced to Young’s singing throughout the show. That was obvious. However, she also apparently just held the megaphone to her mouth, while Young actually sang the lyrics during certain songs.

That was not so obvious from the Starlake Amphitheater lawn.

Read the review located lower on this page for an explanation of this article.

Here’s a chart explaining PhugIt’s site traffic.

Hour 6/15 6/16 6/17 6/18 6/19 6/20 6/21 Total
-------------------------------------------------------
1........0.......1......1........0......12.....11......3------28
2........0.......0......0........1........4.......6......2------13
3........1.......0......0........0........4.....10......5------20
4........0.......0......0........1......10.......5......2------18
5........0.......0......0........1........9.......2......0------12
6........0.......0......0........0........6.......2......1-------9
7........0.......0......0........0......19.......8......0------27
8........0.......0......0........0......20.......2......0------22
9........0.......0......0.......30.....14.......0......3------47
10.......1.......0......0.......36......30.....12......4------83
11.......0.......0......0.......70......19.....11......4-----104
12.......1.......1......2.......61......27.......5......7-----104
13.......0.......0......0.......81........3.....14......4-----102
14.......0.......0......0.......67........0.....12......5------84
15.......0.......1......0.......32........2.....13.....10------58
16.......0.......0......0.......52......27.....14.......1------94
17.......0.......0......1.......55......29.....11.......8-----104
18.......0.......0......1.......37......16.....12.......5-------71
19.......0.......1......0.......29........8.....12.......4-------54
20.......1.......0......0.......27......18.......7.......5-------58
21.......0.......0......0.......21......12.....10.......3-------46
22.......1.......0......0.......22......14.......9.......2-------48
23.......0.......0......1.......30......16.......5.......3-------55
24.......1.......0......1.......19......11.......9.......1-------42
---------------------------------------------------------.........6........4.....7......672....330...202.....82---1,303

2003-06-18T03:54:00.000-04:00

Going to Greendale

Neil Young brought his Greendale challenge to just outside Pittsburgh, PA on June 16.

For the most part, fans at Starlake Amphitheater accepted the challenge by joining Young on his musical trip through the fictional town of Greendale and embracing his performance of almost exclusively new, yet-unheard, and concept-based material. And the fact a 57-year-old musician was willing to challenge an audience in such a way said much about the performer. The easiest thing for Young, who was accompanied by his longtime Crazy Horse associates, would be to simply play a sing-along concert, cash his check, and move to the next town at this stage of his career.

However, anybody who has followed Young’s career knows that is not an acceptable option. He has always challenged himself and his audience, but maybe never to the level of his current tour.

Young’s path has never been that straightforward. Rather, it has turned and twisted through rock, folk, blues, country, rockabilly, and his technology-driven Trans phase - moves often horribly out of step with current musical trends, but always true to his own path. Now, it has journeyed into Greendale - a small seaport community that lent its name to his upcoming album and movie later this summer or fall.

Young performed 10 songs from the upcoming record, as he has done mostly throughout a recent European tour and a few American stops. The songs featured a cast of characters, like Sun Green, Grandpa and Jed, whose lives Young chronicled. There also was an onstage setting that included a jail cell, front porch, and giant screen that displayed constant images, leading one observer - Dan Hinchliffe - to describe the setting as a combination of The Wall meeting The Wizard of Oz.

Even with the unorthodox setting and onstage actors lip-synching many of Young’s words as he sang, his main challenge came about because most fans have not heard any of the songs yet. Many likely did not even know of the unique setup for the performance before arriving. That was the challenge for the audience ... to accept the departure from a standard concert or not, especially when not knowing the material.

The crowd accepted it. And often celebrated it.

Sure, some individuals likely cried themselves hoarse, trying to coax a favorite song from the band. Anybody who focused on that aspect of the evening missed the point and missed some of Young’s best material in a decade.

But for the most part, the crowd went along with the challenge: dancing, cheering, listening, and creating a mellow atmosphere throughout the open-air facility.

The challenge proved easier to accept because the music was quality, solid, romping Crazy Horse with a blues feel at times, and Young - not known for narrative songs with a few exceptions like “Powderfinger” from Rust Never Sleeps - verbally explained much of the story between songs. Young’s music told the tale of a family fighting for its survival, only to see it fractured at times, like when Jed shot a police officer during a traffic stop.

The incident led to a media circus that eventually pushed Grandpa until he died, “Fighting for freedom of silence / Trying to be anonymous,” according to the song “Grandpa’s Interview.”

Lines like those showed the audience’s attentiveness to the new material, as they drew loud rounds of applause - although the most noise came for the three-song encore of “Hey Hey, My, My,” “Sedan Delivery” and “Powderfinger.” Young’s Greendale material received possibly its strongest response during “Leave the Driving." During part of the song, images of Attorney General John Ashcroft and Homeland Security Secretary (and former Pennsylvania Governor) Tom Ridge flashed on the screens when Young sang, “But there's no need to worry / There's no reason to fuss / Just go on about your work now / And leave the drivin' to us / And we'll be watching you / No matter what you do / And you can do your part / By watchin' others too,” to loud cheers.

However, Young provided redemption and possible salvation from scenarios like those.

The Greendale portion of the show ended with Sun - a female - becoming socially active because of what happened to Grandpa. Young hinted at the optimism toward the end of “Leave the Driving ” when he concluded the song with the lines: “And as an afterthought / This must, too, be told / Some people have taken pure bullshit / And turned it into gold.” The bullshit showed the potential to become gold during the final Greendale song “Be the Rain” - one that would not exactly be labeled subtle in its environmental message. Still, while the cast danced on stage and Sun took occasional turns singing into a megaphone, Young showed the good capable of enduring through the paranoia, violence, and distrust.

Young, singing almost Buddhist philosophy, concluded the Greendale section with the lines: “Be the rain you remember fallin' / Be the rain / Be the rain / Save the planet for another day / Be the rain / Be the rain / Be the river as it rolls along / Be the rain / Be the rain / Be the rain, be the rain.”

For more information about Neil Young’s current tour or anything to do with his career, check out HyperRust.org.

2003-06-14T13:42:00.000-04:00

Homer rules the British

Homer Simpson could have preserved the Union, given the I Have a Dream speech, penned the Declaration of Independence, beaten Rocky Balboa for the heavyweight boxing title, sung Blowin’ in the Wind, led Revolutionary War troops, defeated the Nazis, invented numerous items and received a blowjob from an intern in the Oval Office.

Heck, he’s done a lot more than that. Homer, the patriarch of the cartoon Simpsons family, flew into space, ran a bootleg whiskey operation, won a Grammy, saved Springfield from a possible nuclear catastrophe, spent time as a baseball mascot, got shot in the stomach with a cannonball, ran a snowplow business, and so much more. Obviously, the British appreciate the cultural diversity displayed by Homer.

And he’s done all of those things while being piss drunk on Duff beer.

For those reasons and many more, Homer Simpson currently ranks atop a BBC poll that asks, “Who is the greatest American?” And he’s crushing the field. Simpson held almost 41 percent of the vote, as of early Saturday morning on June 14. The rest of the field, featuring distant second-place Abraham Lincoln (10 percent), included Franklin Roosevelt, Mr. T, Martin Luther King, Jr., Bill Clinton, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and Bob Dylan.

Now, try to figure out which name on that list goes with the list of accomplishments in the first sentence. Shame on you if you miss more than two.

2003-06-14T13:40:00.000-04:00

Senator Springer and Governor Schwarzenegger?

Comedy becomes tougher to do when reality gets completely fucked up.

How can somebody make fun of a situation when the potential reality includes Jerry Springer as a United States Senator and Arnold Schwarzenegger as the Governor of California?

Seriously, how is somebody supposed to come up with jokes about a situation when the reality is so twisted to start?

That would barley even make the cut for the last skit on Saturday Night Live because it would seem too farfetched. Just picture Schwarzenegger - with his previously steroid-infested body - debating Springer - backed by a group of rednecks, whose dream is to go on national television and admit they humped their brother’s wives - over the teachings of creationism or evolution in public schools.

Granted, Springer just tossed his name out as a possible candidate in a standard Senate race.
However, some individuals are actually calling for Schwarzenegger to run. That’s happening because some people want to recall current California Governor Gray Davis (D) due to the state’s crippled economy. In fact, currently people have gathered over half of the necessary 900,000 signatures to recall Davis, according to numerous sources, including this website recallgraydavis.com.

If that happens, California would hold a special two-question ballot.

First, people would be asked to basically cast a yes / no vote of confidence concerning Davis.

Secondly, they would be asked to pick a new Governor from an open list of candidates. With just a plurality needed to win among a possible half-dozen candidates or more during a short campaign, built-in name recognition would play a bigger role than usual.

Schwarzenegger would hold a significant advantage in that category.

Given that scenario, a person must ask how messed up is California that Schwarzenegger seems like the best possible savior-type figure?

2003-06-14T13:31:00.000-04:00

The best records

How many Houston Astros does it take to throw a no-hitter against the New York Yankees?

That’s no joke, like some Polish comment involving screwing in a light bulb.

It’s a legitimate question. And there is an answer. It’s six. On June 11, six Astros combined to throw the first no-hitter against the Yankees since a blanking by Baltimore’s Hoyt Wilhelm on September 20, 1958.

They set a Major League Baseball record for most pitchers used in a nine-inning no-hitter that now ranks as one of the least likely records to fall in baseball. Granted, it’s one of the odder records. Plus, the same thing could have been said about the previous record of four pitchers. However, it is deserving of its place.

Here are some other records - some odd, some famous - that will not likely fall anytime soon. Excluding the top record(s), the rest are mentioned in no particular order. They’re just listed.

However, the top record on this list is there for a reason.

Pick a Cy Young record - Cy Young owns the career standards with 511 wins, 815 starts, 316 losses, 7,356.0 innings pitched and 750 complete games. The Astros six-person no-hitter shows why all of Young’s records will likely still stand a century from now. The game - specifically pitching - has changed too much for people to threaten Young’s marks. Managers don’t let people pitch like they did during Young’s days. Pitchers can get pulled even if they do good, depending on the situation. None of those Houston pitchers even allowed a hit, but they got pulled due to situational decisions.

The Yankees’ Roger Clemens also recently highlighted how far ahead Young’s marks are from anybody playing today or in the near future. Clemens ranks as one of the unquestioned best pitchers of his generation. He is also in the closing days of his career. Clemens just put another punctuation mark on his career by collecting his 300th win. Win number 400 is not even a remote option.

Now, here comes the no-particular-order part.

The careers of Minnie Minoso and Nick Altrock - Both men played on the major league level in five different decades. Altrock played from 1898-1933, while Minoso’s career spanned from 1949 to 1980. For a person to play in six decades, he would almost have to theoretically enter the league at 18 in say 2009. He would then have to still be playing in 2050 at the age of 59.

Old Hoss’ old record - Old Hoss Radbourn - a name that immediately makes most modern baseball fans recall the words ‘who?’ ‘hah?’ and ‘what?’ - collected 60 wins for Providence in 1884. Basically, the same sentiments about Young’s records apply here. Jack Chesbro won 41 games in 1904 to set the modern-day standard.

Pick Satchel Paige’s age - Satchel Paige’s age was always a rough estimate at best. It was part of the mystery surrounding the former Negro League star, especially when he entered Major League Baseball after the color barrier fell. According to ‘official’ information, Paige played a big league game when he was 58 years, two months and 18 days old on 9-25-1965. The record will not likely fall unless some individual purposely makes a gimmick-type appearance just to beat it. Paige was also the oldest rookie at 42.

Joe Nuxhall’s mark as the youngest player ever - 15 years, 10 months, 11 days - appears equally safe.

Both men’s careers put them in the record books due to unique situations. Paige was barred from playing in the big leagues until the color barrier fell in 1947. Nuxhall made his debut when many able-bodied men and big league players served during World War II.

Hit by pitch in the 1800s - Ed Knouff or John Grimes would charge the mound nowadays. But a century ago, both men just kept stepping into the batter’s box and getting hit. During one game in 1887, Knouff was hit by six pitches. Grimes, playing for the National League Saint Louis’ franchise, repeated the number in 1897. In modern times, a game would get stopped if one batter got hit six times because just about every player would be ejected for fighting.

Cal’s big number - Records that take a decade and a half to break don’t fall easily. Nor do records that can end due to a broken finger, the flu, back pain or other ailments. Those factors make Cal Ripken’s record of 2,632 consecutive games played one of the most secure.

A scorekeeper’s dilemma - Bottom of the ninth, a 12-run game is already basically decided, a person steps into the batter’s box with an 0-for-4 mark and he hits a grounder toward the shortstop, who bobbles it in the hole. Would he have gotten the guy out at first with a clean catch and throw? Is it a hit? Or an error? By the way, there’s a 56-game hitting streak on the line.

No scorekeeper will probably find himself in that situation.

The idea of anybody approaching Joe DiMaggio’s 56-game hitting streak seems that farfetched. The media pressure alone would be suffocating once a person even approached 45 games.

Just being Ty Cobb - He was a son of a bitch. But he could hit. Cobb posted a lifetime batting average of .367. He also led the American League in batting 12 times. The Georgia Peach also stole home 54 times. When was the last time you saw anybody steal home?

Road trip - Play the early afternoon game of a doubleheader in New York. Get traded. Play a late-afternoon game in Chicago. Get traded. Hop on another plane. Play a game in Los Angeles. Somebody would have to do basically that to break a record shared by Max Flack (5-30-1922), Cliff Heathcote (5-30-1922) and Joel Youngblood (8-4-1982), who all played for two teams in the same day due to the timing of their trades.

A perfect loss - Harvey Haddix created ‘perfect plus’ on May 26, 1959. Haddix pitched 12 perfect innings for the Pittsburgh Pirates opposite the Milwaukee Braves, setting the record for most perfect frames ever tossed in one game. And he still lost 1-0 in the 13th stanza.

Together by themselves - Bill Wambganss, George Burns, Ernie Padgett, Glenn Wright, Jimmy Cooney and Johnny Neun all did something individually. They turned unassisted triple plays during the 1920s. Nobody else did the same thing again until 1968.

Together, they created a combined six unassisted triple plays during the decade - a number that dwarfs any 10-year span. In fact, baseball has only six other unassisted triple plays from 1878 to present.

Double up - Johnny Vander Meer did a freak thing. He collected no-hitters in back-to-back starts for the Cincinnati Reds in 1938. Three in a row would seem a little too freakish to seriously consider.

Online sources

Baseball Almanac

2003-06-13T02:00:00.000-04:00

Sign up

Your penis won’t get any longer. Your mortgage rate won’t decrease. You won’t find true love with a Russian mail-order bride. You won’t get $50 from Microsoft for passing along e-mails. You won’t lose 10 pounds in two days. You won’t help some supposedly sick kid, who does not even really exist, set some record for receiving the most e-mails in the history of mankind.

None of those usual things promised by junk e-mail and numerous websites will happen if you check out this link at Amnesty International.

Rather, you’ll help people.

What an interesting way to use the Internet, eh?

To mark the 30th anniversary of the Amnesty International Urgent Action Network’s founding, the group is sponsoring a membership drive throughout June. It won’t cost you anything to join. You’ll just have to supply some information to the Human Rights Action Center.

But that’s not all.

For each new person that signs up during June, an anonymous individual will donate $1 to the UAN - up to $100,000. So go sign up. And help support human rights now.

2003-06-04T23:00:00.000-04:00

A lovely home in the Carolina woods

Martha Stewart should talk to Eric Rudolph’s real estate agent.

Okay, Rudolph - the suspect recently arrested in relation to the Olympic Park bombing in Atlanta, GA and other acts of violence against abortion clinics - probably does not have a real estate agent. However, if reports are to be believed, Rudolph spent the last few years in isolated regions of southwest North Carolina, living off the land in make-shift shelters.

Wink, wink, nudge, nudge ... no anti-government types helped him during the last half-decade, either.

Now that he is captured, it would seem those hideouts - where he claimed to live on only wild game, acorns and lizards - are available. Maybe Stewart should inquire about a selling price, seeing is how she recently ran into her own trouble with the law. Stewart, well-known for promoting and financially prospering from a lifestyle that basically amounts to polishing the Titanic’s brass, to paraphrase a line from Fight Club - was indicted on June 4, 2003.

Her legal troubles stemmed from a December 2001 incident for which she is accused of having taken advantage of insider trading information when she learned her friend’s business - ImClone - would receive a negative government report concerning a key product. Stewart, who was labeled a domestic diva by some, allegedly sold her stock the day before the announcement based on insider information.

The nine indictments claim she then undertook a course of deception and fraud.

Ironically, Stewart claims her recent troubles cost her hundreds of millions of dollars due to stock drops in her own company and other losses when she would have lost only under $50,000 if she kept the ImClone stock, according to MSNBC.

So, maybe Stewart should run and hide like Rudolph. She could go to one of his recently-made-available hideouts where she could learn how to cook lizard and acorn stew and write a book about the 101 best ways to decorate a cave.

2003-06-04T22:56:00.000-04:00

American flag smoke

Hack, hack, cough, cough, hack, cough.

Sorry, had to clear the lungs there from all the smoke. So many people are burning American flags that the air is filled with smoke for miles. Well, at least that is what the United States House of Representatives apparently would have people believe.

The Republican-controlled Congress voted 300-125 to amend the Constitution in order to criminalize flag burning on June 4. The collective pseudo-patriotic pat on the back marked the fifth time in eight years the same legislative body passed such a proposal. It will also mark the fifth time in eight years the would-be amendment does not become the law of the land when it falters somewhere along the lengthy course mandated for changing the basic framework of American law.

It will fail in part because there is no need for the legislation.

There just are not a whole heck of a lot of flag burning incidents. There certainly are not enough to justify an amendment, which should only be used in bold, sweeping, socially-changing issues like freeing slaves. The flag burning amendment could get ratified tomorrow by people who show the weakness of their own convictions by fearing expression that attacks their beliefs and just about nobody would have their lives changed. Basically flag burning is just a stunt performed by people who tend to not really have much of importance to say if you actually hear them speak.

The act is performed in most cases just to draw attention and upset people, who are so foolish because they don’t understand that many people burn flags just to agitate them. It’s basically the same as Marilyn Manson’s musical career. He performs a lot of his theatrics just to get people upset and talking about him. The same holds true for flag burners. It also holds true for a bunch of Klansmen, who should equally be allowed to burn a cross during gatherings, as long as it is not a case of the individuals setting one on fire and leaving it on a black man’s front yard in order to intimidate him.

A bunch of racists getting together for a meeting in the woods and burning a cross, while spouting an idiotic doctrine, is disgusting, but it should be protected free speech as long as there is no violence supported. In general people like Manson, flag burners and those in the KKK often performer their little stunts because they need the shock value in order to compensate for a lack of an ability to put together deep messages.

Then again, there is no law that says a person has to be profound.

That is not the only problem with proposed flag-burning legislation, though, which would do nothing to address the whoring-out of the flag by businesses that slap it on products to have Fourth of July sales or other events where they attempt to highjack patriotism in order to turn a profit.

Mainly, people are trying to censor a thought with the proposed amendment ... no matter how much they claim otherwise. The proper way to dispose of a flag, according to the United States Flag Code, is to burn it. The two actions are the same. The person looking to show respect for a worn flag sets it on fire to dispose of it. The person looking to make a political statement sets it on fire, too.

The main differences are in the motivation behind it and the person’s thoughts.

And trying to punish somebody for their thoughts and outward expression of those ideas is censorship.

Along with the censoring, there is also the idea that a flag is a symbol. And symbols mean different things to different people. They are not absolutes. People can say the flag represents freedom, justice and all that is right with America. That’s not a law, though. It’s an interpretation of a symbol, which could change in meaning. Symbols do not have to mean the same thing to all people.

Plus, what if somebody rearranges the symbol?

What if somebody took the exact same cloth that was supposed to be used to make a flag and stitched it together in the same pattern, but made a red field, blue stars, and white and blue stripes? Is that still an American flag? Would it fall under the amendment? Is the cloth what the law wants to protect? The color scheme? The pattern?

2003-05-29T22:38:00.000-04:00

The incredible, forgettable presidents

Bill Clinton would probably like to embrace an old Chinese curse.

Well, he might like to at least clutch a phrase attributed to ancient Oriental philosophy, although nobody seems able to document it much past this century in America. Either way, the curse is this: May you live in interesting times.

It’s a curse because most truly interesting times in terms of political and social development involve conflict and difficulty. But history also only tends to remember leaders who lived during interesting times. Nothing historically significant enough happened during Clinton’s presidency to lift him above the bottom level of presidents in terms of historical recognition come 100 years from now. The most interesting - and historically relevant - event of his presidency involved something Clinton, who recently suggested possibly altering the United States Constitution in order to allow a president to serve more than two terms, does obviously not want as his legacy.

However, the first line of Clinton’s biography will always involve a description of how he was the hillbilly who almost lost the presidency of the United States because he got blow jobs from an ugly fat chick. Part of the reason for that description was because Clinton did not live in exceptionally interesting times. Almost no events occurred during his eight years in office that leap out as among the most important in American history.

There were a few military actions. However, serving as Commander-in-Chief during battles like Kosovo did not secure any place in history. Just about every American president has dealt with some sort of armed conflict even if minor ones. It’s nothing out of the ordinary, so it does not guarantee immediate recognition. How many Americans remember who was president during the Whiskey Rebellion, Barbary Wars, Bleeding Kansas, Banana Wars, U.S. Intervention in the Hawaiian Revolution or Boxer Rebellion?

Even impeachment did not gain Clinton an automatic click in the minds of Americans like people get when hearing the name Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt or Thomas Jefferson. Anybody who doubts that should poll people to see how many know Andrew Johnson was impeached in 1868. Instead, Clinton finds himself a likely candidate for the list of forgettable presidents like James Polk, Benjamin Harrison, James Buchanan, Warren Harding, Franklin Pierce and Chester Arthur - a lot likely destined for most of the presidents of the last 50 years, excluding John Kennedy, Richard Nixon and George W. Bush.

Sometimes the difference between historically significant and largely forgotten comes down to situations beyond the individual’s control. Even if out-of-the-ordinary forces act upon a person, there is no guarantee he will make a lasting impression on the American landscape. The presidencies and complete existences of James Garfield and William McKinley basically hold almost no immediate significance or recognition in modern American culture.

When was the last time you heard a person refer to either man?

Probably not within the last two years. However, both of them were involved in important events in the history of the presidency ... they were assassinated while in office.

But history can be fickle like that.

Few leaders can force their way into the collective fabric of America’s recognition. Almost nobody, excluding a few historians, remembers Lincoln’s economic policies. Rather, they remember how he rose to the occasion of preserving the Union. Every president develops financial strategies, trade policies and other philosophies to deal with issues of the day. But not all are called to respond to history-shaping events.

That is the key difference.

For example, Clinton can only watch as Bush runs America during historic times.

Clinton knows he could have been called upon to guide America through one of its darkest days if the timing had been different by only a few months. There is likely some jealousy involved. Bush certainly will not rank among the best presidents in United States history. Far from it. Far, far from it. Immediate recognition does not necessarily mean greatness, though. People will remember Nixon, but they will remember him for being a crook who tarnished the office. If nothing else, Bush will be remembered in the history books for holding office during one of the most historic times in recent memory that started with the 9-11 attacks.

Clinton will not gain any such recognition.

His obvious lost chance at a significant place in American presidential history possibly played a role in Clinton’s recent suggestion that the United States Constitution might possibly be amended so an individual could serve more than two terms as long as they are not consecutive. Clinton, who was barred from seeking a third term due to the 22nd Amendment just like every leader of the nation since Franklin Roosevelt won four elections, did not mention himself by name. Rather, he stated, “There may come a time when we elect a president at age 45 or 50, and then 20 years later the country comes up against the same kind of problems the president faced before. People would like to bring that man or woman back but they would have no way to do so.”

Short of using the hypothetical name - Bill C. from Arkansas - in his quote shown here at CNN.com, his suggestion could not be more obvious.

Clinton will not get his wish, though, since officials will not amend the Constitution within the next few decades barring a drastic shift in American politics or an event that puts the country on the verge of extinction. He is destined to rank among the relatively unforgettable leaders of America. His lot was secured because circumstance never called upon him to display any potential greatness he could have shown. Such is the case with many presidents. Maybe Polk could have led America through the Civil War as well as Lincoln. He was just never called upon to do it.

So, he is largely forgotten.

Clinton will be, too.

2003-05-23T12:43:00.000-04:00

The ‘turf hit Time

Maybe the GOP should compose a letter explaining the importance of being free and independent thinkers and then give it to all its team leaders to sign, so they can show what free and independent thinkers they are by supporting the statement without question.

Then maybe Time magazine will run those opinions in its ‘Letters’ section.

Time already ran one such letter for the Republican Party in its May 26, 2003 issue. The letter to the editor read as follows:

Creating jobs and fostering economic growth need to be our No. 1 national priorities. President Bush recognizes this and has delivered a jobs-and-growth plan that will create 1.4 million new jobs in the next two years. Twelve Senate Democrats understood the important impact tax relief has on growing our economy when Bush's tax plan was passed into law. Why are Senate Democrats ignoring their previous support for tax reduction and its economic impact? They should line up behind the President and give the economy the boost it sorely needs. Cutting taxes is the right thing to do to grow the economy.

It was signed by Thomas J. Stokes of Fredonia, NY. The name is irrelevant, though, since basically the exact same words have appeared in the Union-Tribune (San Diego, CA), News Examiner (Gallatin, Tennessee), Daily Times (Glasgow, Kentucky), Sun-News (Las Cruces, New Mexico), and numerous other publications all under different names. The practice is called “astroturfing” - as in a fake grassroots movement.

And it is a practice fully supported by the GOP.

Basically, the group encourages people to become team leaders at this website. Then, among other things, members are encouraged to just add their names to prewritten letters and send them to newspapers as if they wrote them themselves. Call it what you want, it’s lying.

It’s something that could easily fool even well-trained editorial page compilers, who assume an individual would have enough self-respect to not just let other people speak for him in such a fashion.

Granted, the Republican Party is far from the only organization that provides prewritten letters for people to sign. Many organizations - like Amnesty International - provide prewritten letters for people to use in its human rights campaigns. AI provides letters for people to just sign and send to individuals responsible for particular human rights violations.

Many political groups - covering the entire philosophical spectrum - encourage people to do the same thing with letters to their elected officials. Even though some people have good intentions, it’s still a lazy practice. People should at least take the time to write: “Mr. Representative, I support the current bill to allow whatever. Please vote for it.”

The main difference between those practices and astroturfing is that few organizations would even consider encouraging people to claim the work as their own and publish it with their name attached. When a dictator receives several thousand identical copies of an AI letter, the individual understands what happened. The same goes for a congressman that receives multiple copies of an opinion letter.

However, that is not the case with individual letters sent to newspapers. Such letters are based around deception. They lead people to believe the individual wrote them. And that is the key difference - publication. People who forward prewritten e-mail opinions to officials never intend the letters for publication. They know - at most - the letter will just end up in a pro or con pile. More than likely, it will just end up deleted from the e-mail account.

People who send astroturf do intend the letters for publication, though.

By sending a letter to an editor and signing a name, an individual basically states those are his words, his thoughts, and his beliefs. In the case of astroturfing, that’s a lie.

Sources

Irregular Times

Online Journalism Review

2003-05-23T12:38:00.000-04:00

Time to quit

John Randolph and George Bernard Johnson might want to slow down their chemical recreation.

Both recently did some pretty stupid things due to their chemicals of choice. At least Randolph’s actions were just stupid. Johnson’s were dangerous.

Johnson, 66 of Wilkinsburg, PA, was recently denied the option of going to an in-patient treatment facility, while awaiting sentencing for a recent criminal conviction, according to this story in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. And what was Johnson’s crime, you ask?

Johnson recently pled guilty to his 32nd DUI since 1967 even though he has not possessed a valid driver’s license since 1979. Not 29. Not 30. Not 31. But 32 DUIs. And he was still on the streets. The court refused to allow the treatment, stating the opinion that he obviously did not want to get rehabilitated.

Meanwhile, Randolph found his own problems in Dublin, GA.

Recently, the bus driver reported a robbery during which he lost a gold necklace, loose change and a pistol. But there was something else. Randolph also told the officers that the crook stole his marijuana. When asked why he admitted the possession of an illegal substance to law enforcement officers, Randolph apparently said he was always taught to tell the truth, according to this link at www.ananova.com.

When that seems like a logical course of action, then you have smoked entirely way too much dope.

2003-05-23T12:34:00.000-04:00

American President or American Idol?

Thankfully, at least four times as many people considered it more important to vote in the 2000 presidential election than went to the figurative ballot box to decide the American Idol winner. Then again, over 24 million people took the time to cast a vote in the television series based around musical Darwinism.

That’s not too good of a sign.

The most interesting part would be to find out how many of those individuals - at least the ones legally allowed to vote - did not actually rank among the 105 million people who voted in the most recent presidential election.

Apparently, there is some controversy surrounding the American Idol outcome, since only approximately 130,000 votes separated the two finalists. Please insert your own Florida recount joke here.

2003-05-22T01:51:00.000-04:00

Don’t feel blue ... feel orange, feel very orange

Americans should at least find themselves in kind of a code blue safety mood now.

Right?

Wasn’t safety the whole point of stomping Iraq in a war? Government officials, talking heads and other hawks repeatedly told people how eliminating Saddam Hussein would make Americans safer.

There is no increased safety, though.

Instead, the government just told us to be more afraid.

Basically since the Department of Homeland Security instigated a color-coded terror alert system, the ranking has been set at yellow or “elevated” with a few exceptions. The war was supposed to reduce our fear and the likelihood of terrorism. By now, the level should have dropped to blue (guarded) if that was the case.

It has not happened.

On the contrary, the level recently increased to orange or “high.” The level jumped due in part to recent terrorist attacks in places like Saudi Arabia apparently executed by al-Qaida. (Remember al-Qaida? You know, the guys who knocked down those tall buildings in New York City. None of whom came from Iraq.)

It kind of makes one wonder about the war’s necessity if the American military’s complete dominance cannot even create a relatively meaningless positive change on a crayon-based safety scale.

2003-05-22T01:48:00.000-04:00

PhugIt got mail

Holy shit, somebody’s reading PhugIt and I don’t know the person.

First of all just let me state that I operate under the assumption that only people who know me read this site. I also work under the assumption the same thing is true about stories I write for other sources, like newspapers. I know that’s not true or I wouldn’t have a job. But that’s what I do.

Anyhow, I recently received an e-mail from somebody through the PhugIt address. It was a noteworthy PhugIt moment, since it was the first e-mail received from somebody who did not come from the same womb as me. (Note: Thanks to my sister Pati for the other e-mail in the past.)

The e-mail provided me with a link to a site called ReachM High Cowboy Network Noose. There’s some good stuff there. The top story on May 21 was entitled "Flashing on the Shrubbery" and featured the opening paragraph:

After a few days of postwar Iraq, I was pretty worn out. Months of active opposition to an approaching war had failed, fuelling passionate temper at its deception and inception. As the bombs flew, I needed no Al Jazeera reminders of the bloodshed and devastation. I could feel it, every day, in my soul.

It continued from there with a few more paragraphs and then a series of multimedia links. Go check it out. Some of the links are damn funny. Also read some other stuff. The site is interesting.

I also noticed a link on the side to PhugIt and Mike’s Gorilla-a-Gogo.

There was one also for The Meatstack - a site operated by Craig, who never broke his arm by jumping on the back of a moving truck when he attempted a getaway after a cheerleader in high school caught him trying to take nude pictures of her because her ex-boyfriend paid him to do so in order to get revenge on her. (Note: He knows what that means even if nobody else does. That’s good enough for me.)

2003-05-20T23:29:00.000-04:00

Fictional facts

Jayson Blair could make The New York Times Best-Seller Fiction List and Nonfiction List ... for the same book.

It would be a tough call for any organization to label Blair’s possible future book. How would a person categorize a supposed nonfiction account of how he lost his previous job for lying? Fiction? Nonfiction? Complete bullshit?

We’ll probably soon learn that answer, since Blair recently acquired an agent to help him sort through potential book and movie deals.

The situation could become doubly interesting for The New York Times - the paper from which Blair resigned earlier this month after repeatedly plagiarizing other people’s work and committing other journalistic no-nos. Just imagine the irony if the NYT had to list Blair’s book on its internationally-known Best-Seller List.

2003-05-14T14:01:00.000-04:00

Keeping America safe from people with the munchies

The United States should have put Tommy Chong’s face on a playing card.

You know the cards, the ones of the most wanted Iraqis. That way American citizens could know exactly how much to fear Chong and to celebrate his capture. It’s hard to tell without official verification from a deck of playing cards. Was his arrest the equivalent of a two of spades in keeping America safe or was it a nine of hearts?

Maybe Chong could have been his own separate kind of card - something like the three of green leaves.

With no such card apparently on the horizon, people might have to think for themselves on the matter without having the easy to identify playing card reference to guide them.

Here’s what happened.

On May 13 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Chong, known for his role in the marijuana-based series of Cheech and Chong comedy movies, pled guilty to drug charges. His arrest was part of a nationwide drug sweep called Operation Pipe Dreams that reached from Pittsburgh to the west coast and in which Attorney General John Ashcroft played a role.

Chong, who operated out of California but got busted for selling to a Pennsylvania front, was busted for selling drug paraphernalia over the Internet. He allegedly sold pipes and bongs through his company Nice Dreams Enterprises from September 2001 to February 2003.

By pleading guilty, Chong could avoid a possible three-year prison sentence and just receive a six-month to 12-month sentence. Yes, the same federal government that has failed to capture Osama bin Laden - the mastermind of the September 11 terrorist attacks, Saddam Hussein - a man the United States went to war against, and the unknown individual who frightened the nation by sending anthrax-laced letters to several high-profile government officials and businesses is going to put Tommy Chong in jail.

Symbolically enough, Chong, now free on his own recognizance, will be sentenced in Pittsburgh on ... you guessed it, September 11.

MSNBC story about Tommy Chong’s arrest

2003-05-14T01:36:00.000-04:00

Vijay and Annika

One stroke. A chip. A putt. A drive. Anything.

Just let Annika Sorenstam beat Vijay Singh by one stroke at the upcoming PGA event at The Colonial Country Club. It would be justice even if the two find themselves playing for last place.

The scene would be great to see.

Forget the social roles and women’s issues aspects. It would just be good to see a schmuck who shot off his mouth lose to the person he put down. In this case, Singh, who carried on elite golf’s exclusionary tradition that has served it for generations in fights to keep people like blacks and Jews out of country clubs, is the schmuck.

He recently mouthed off about how he feels Sorenstam should not compete in a men’s PGA event and how he would not compete in the tournament if paired with her. Ironically, many people would have likely made the same comment about an Indian from Fiji like Singh if somebody with that cultural background attempted to play professional golf a few decades ago.

Other individuals have expressed displeasure with Sorenstam’s appearance, although Singh, who backed off his statements to a degree after he received some heat, has been the most outspoken. Some people have labeled her entry as a publicity stunt. Others suggested she only picked this particular course to play because it suits her style.

Both are supposed insults that just make no sense.

There is obviously a publicity-stunt aspect to her entry. Of course. However, every time Tiger Woods makes a commercial it is a publicity stunt, too. She also probably did pick this course because she thought it held the best chance for her to post quality scores. That’s just called strategy. A woman attempting to undertake such a task would naturally go to a ball-control course as opposed to a long-driver’s course.

All strategy aside, Sorenstam will not win the event. But she will also not finish in last place. Hopefully, the men who finish behind her will have more security in their own manhood than Singh and display some dignity in finishing behind a woman.

Even if she finishes strong, Sorenstam’s effort will not create a mass influx of women into the PGA. Women, in general, do not have the physical strength to compete with men in most head-to-head athletic competitions, although golf does provide a unique opportunity where Sorenstam could at least make a decent showing.

2003-05-13T23:29:00.000-04:00

Get some new lenses if that’s the problem

Maybe some American war photographers broke their camera lenses in Iraq.

Supplies would seem hard to find on the frontline if they did.

That seems like a possible explanation for comments made by some individuals concerning Ashleigh Banfield’s recent statements during an address at Kansas State University. Banfield, a MSNBC reporter, recently got reprimanded by the network for her comments during a speech, as detailed in this Kansas State Collegian article. Banfield basically took to task the cable news networks for presenting the Iraq war in a somewhat sanitized way where the consequences of all those explosions were not shown.

She also bashed them for presenting the conflict more as a ratings-grabbing television presentation as opposed to showing the bloody aspects of fighting. Banfield also attacked the idea of embedded reporters, who are more than likely only going to tell the side of the story wanted by the people protecting them.

First of all, war is gruesome and unfortunately civilian casualties do happen. Women and children sometimes die even from guns fired by people with noble causes like American soldiers in World War II. That’s a fact. It can’t be helped.

Plus, Banfield was not entirely in the clear. She apparently made some factual errors during her presentation. That shows a lack of fact checking. She should know better.

However, the most disgusting and reprehensible aspects of the whole incident were the responses to her legitimate and well-founded comments. Here’s one of the most ludicrous attacks on Banfield’s statements from an April 29 Reuters article written by Andrew Grossman:

Reporters who have returned from Iraq have defended the networks' lack of blood-and-guts video, saying it was impossible to film much of it because of logistical reasons. They also noted that embedded reporters did not see action much of the time in Iraq.

"In my situation, I didn't have the occasion to videotape many bodies or anything," said Don Dahler, an ABC News correspondent embedded in Iraq who was interviewed April 16 after returning to the United States. "I don't think I would have shied away from shooting dead bodies or injured Americans."

Hmmmm, what’s the phrase, what’s the phrase? Hmmmmm. Ah yes, here it is. Those two paragraphs are absolute bullshit. Well, maybe not. Hold on. Maybe those sentiments are not total bullshit. Maybe the American photographers covering the war were not as skilled as some of their international counterparts. Maybe the embedded cameramen just did not have as good of a sense for the action as the ones not tied to military groups. Maybe they did break their camera lenses.

Whatever the reason, they did not seem to produce the same type of graphic photos of the war’s consequences.

One of those reasons could be why they did not get as many pictures of injured Iraqi civilians. That must be a tough choice for them: bullshitter or second-level photographer. Either way, something was wrong because the pictures are readily available through numerous outlets, excluding many mainstream American sources.

(Note: Violence should not be exploited for commercial gain. It’s a tough line to draw between being informative and being morbid. But saying the images were not available is just foolish.

The following is a list of some sites that show Iraqi casualty pictures that apparently many American photographers could not find. Just as a note, these pictures are graphic. They are as horrible as you could imagine. They are not posted here for shock value. If they were just meant to shock, I would have just posted them right on this page and given the photographers credit.

They are just shown to provide a counterpoint to people who claim they could not easily find documentation of the war’s human consequences.

Also, providing these links does not mean PhugIt agrees with the written opinions expressed by all of the websites. The links are just meant to show the availability of the images.)

Illuminatrix
March for Justice
Scoop #1
Scoop #2
Regular Everyday People (Scroll down a little bit to find pictures from the recent Iraq War)
EuroLegal
In War We Trust
Care USA

2003-05-12T23:41:00.000-04:00

Smart-ass self-promotion

I lost my New York Times stylebook when writing the article promoted in this entry.

Unlike former NYT reporter Jayson Blair, I actually interviewed the people quoted in my recent story in the Slovak Spectator. I also did not plagiarize anything, as opposed to Blair who was busted for horrible journalistic lapses in dozens of stories, leading the paper to state: “The widespread fabrication and plagiarism represent a profound betrayal of trust and a low point in the 152-year history of the newspaper.”

His deception forced the Times to issue a detailed chronicle of his actions concerning stories about the D.C. snipers, American P.O.W. Jessica Lynch, and other major nationally-known events and individuals.

Well, now that the smart-ass comments are out of the way, here is the self-promotion aspect of this post. This link will take you to the Slovak Spectator. It’s a weekly, English-based newspaper in Bratislava - the Slovakia capital.

The story discusses two brothers tracing their Slovak family histories in America. And just to be as honest as possible - again breaking from Blair’s policy - the brothers are my cousins. It also features information collected from my conversations with individuals associated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (Insert own joke here.)

It’s not in the New York Times. Hundreds of thousands of people will not read it. But it’s honest, straightforward, detailed, accurate and all my own work. And I’ll take that over printing lies in a major paper any day.

Thanks to Craig at The Meatstack for plugging my story. Since it is on the front page of his blog, I cannot provide a direct link to the story itself. Instead, this link will just take you to his site. It was the top story as of late May 12. Just scroll down to find it if you are reading this later.

If I remember, I will provide a direct link when the story works its way off his main page.

2003-05-11T22:22:00.000-04:00

Let those who ride decide

Align the car mirrors. Adjust yourself in a seat. Click your safety belt. Check the locks. Strap on your helmet.

Seems like an odd scenario just to drive down the road in a car, or truck or van. Imagine if people had to wear helmets when driving one of those vehicles. Citizens would be furious. Not many soccer moms would likely accept the helmet as part of their daily errand running. But motorcycle riders must wear helmets by law in many states, including Pennsylvania where one State Senator - Democrat John Wozniak - looks to change the commonwealth's policy.

Obviously, there is a difference. Motorcycle riders are exposed to the road like nobody else driving any other type of vehicle. Plus, cars have additional safety devices like airbags and seatbelts. There is no doubt about that. But a standard argument used in support of mandatory helmet laws is that if they save one life, then the law is worth it.

Okay, let’s accept that idea.

Then the same should hold true for people driving cars, trucks or vans.

But that’s not going to happen.

However, motorcycle riders are subject to helmet laws in many states.

First of all, let’s be honest here. Say you’re going 65 m.p.h. down a highway on a motorcycle. You skid on some cinders, lose control and hit your head on a guardrail. Your loved ones are picking out a casket one way or the other. No helmet is saving you.

Motorcycle riders know that. Riders understand the potential consequences of a motorcycle accident more than anyone else. They also realize the most important safety device is just being a skilled, educated, respectful and courteous rider. No helmet can take the place of those traits.

To be blunt, once a rider - even a skilled and respectful one - gets going faster than the speed needed to pull out of his driveway, the evidence is sketchy as to whether helmets do much to protect riders from increased injuries during accidents. The extra layer of protection likely does help. Just ask a baseball player who has ever been hit in the head how thankful he is for the helmet that possibly saved his life.

On the other side, some people suggest the limitation on sight and sound, along with the wear of the extra weight, can cause problems when wearing a motorcycle helmet.

Most statistics are useless when discussing the issue either pro or con. Too many variables exist to isolate the information, although numerous people attempt to interpret the data in favor of their positions. If you just type something like “motorcycle helmet statistics” into a search engine, then numerous articles will appear citing numbers in support of both sides.

The numbers are easy to twist, though.

Say for instance, state A eliminates its helmet laws and motorcycle accidents increase over the next two years. That would seem to be a straightforward connection. However, it ignores other variables. Maybe the number of riders in the state increased also. Maybe the number of young, first-time riders, who did not know how to properly operate their motorcycles, increased. Etc. Etc. Factors like those could also lead to increased accidents that just happened to coincide with the helmet law change.

A lot of the statistical problems come from how motorcycle accidents are just all lumped together, ignoring issues like drunk driving, at times. There are also other inaccurate scenarios. Imagine a motorcycle rider stopped at an intersection. He is not wearing a helmet. A drunk driver speeds through a yellow light, so he does not have to wait at the red. He loses control of his vehicle, crashes into the motorcycle and kills the rider. Through no fault of the motorcycle rider, that accident can be considered a statistical case of a rider killed while not wearing a helmet.

But it’s just not the deaths.

Individuals and groups suggest helmets help keep down medical costs by eliminating injuries. The claim is that the mandatory law is good because it protects people from what they consider an obvious dangerous situation. Again, let’s assume that is the case. Where do we draw the line? How should a government decide when to bow to the insurance companies and when not to do so? People who eat more red meat than salad are more likely to encounter costly medical problems with their hearts. Drinkers are more likely to encounter costly medical problems with their livers than non-drinkers.

Anybody for outlawing steak and beer?

It’s not the job of governments or insurance companies to attempt to protect people from themselves. Sometimes you just have to eat the fat steak, drink the liver-scarring booze and drive down the highway without a helmet or seatbelt. You have to do it, so you know you’re alive.

However, if people want to wear the helmets because it makes them feel safer, good for them. More power to them. But people who believe they do not provided any significant safety increase should not be forced to comply with the rule. That is the idea behind Wozniak’s proposed bill that would eliminate mandatory helmet laws for a person over 21 who has been licensed for two years, or an individual 21 or older who has passed a safety course, or a passenger over 21. In a release, Wozniak, a legislative voice for the Alliance of Bikers Aimed Toward Education, stated, “I believe responsible drivers can make their own decisions,” as seen in The Johnstown Tribune-Democrat.

2003-05-11T03:50:00.000-04:00

One Love

Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery
None but ourselves can free our minds
Have no fear for atomic energy
Cause none of them can stop the time
How long shall they kill our prophets
While we stand aside and look
Some say it's just a part of it
We've got to fulfill the book

Won't you help to sing, these songs of freedom
Cause all I ever had, redemption songs
Redemption songs, redemption songs
-Bob Marley from Redemption Song

Here's to the spirit of the shaman showman.

Bob Marley
February 6, 1945 to May 11, 1981

2003-05-10T16:17:00.000-04:00

Let’s play No Balls with Chris Matthews

Imagine somebody accusing the President of the United States of going AWOL on a national, primetime, cable news show. On your show, nonetheless.

Then imagine your gimmick is to bill yourself as somebody who always plays Hardball - to use the name of Chris Matthews’ one-hour, nightly show on the ratings-starved MSNBC network. My God, you would have to salivate at the chance. What an opportunity to play Hardball.

Well that was exactly what happened on May 7 when Matthews asked Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor of The Nation, “Why does everybody do the wrong thing in politics now? Why are the Democrats so stupid as to attack the best picture in years from a president?” when discussing President Bush’s recent photo-op aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln.

She responded by stating, “But they should go after this because it was - it was a Technicolor movie for two reasons. Look, what he’s doing on shore, hurting veterans while he’s strutting aboard that ship. And two, to be honest, Chris, this man was never - he went AWOL, you know, for a year in the National Guard. More important, they got a lot to work with, the Democrats.”

How could somebody ask for a better opportunity to play Hardball than after a person accused the leader of America of having gone AWOL during his time in the National Guard? Instead, Matthews played No Balls. Ignoring the opportunity to get into a good-old-fashioned political donnybrook about the highly-charged statement, the next words out of Matthews’ mouth were: “Michael Graham.” (Writer’s note: Maybe Matthews was just too busy thinking about returning to Comedy Central’s The Daily Show and again trying to convince people MSNBC has not bent hard to the right in recent months to ask a follow-up question about the AWOL statement. Or maybe he was thinking about doing more commercials for Joe Scarborough and Keith Olbermann.)

After a brief statement by vanden Heuvel, Graham, the person on the conservative side for the standard left wing vs. right wing cable television sound-off, responded by saying, “Katrina, you know, X-men 2 was a multi-Technicolorful spectacle, whatever. It grossed $100 million. George W. Bush won the election when he got out of that plane and people saw how much fun he was having. It was a direct emotional visceral connection.”

Right there on national television, a person accused President Bush of going AWOL. The host responded by ignoring the comment and never returning to the subject. The conservative mouthpiece responded by talking about a movie.

That shows what a taboo the subject is among cable news networks and most people in the mainstream press. For those who don’t know, legitimate questions exist as to whether Bush actually fulfilled his obligation when flying planes for the National Guard. Maybe people who want to believe the stories blow them out of proportion. That’s probably not the case, though.

Besides, when has that ever stopped cable news networks in the past?

If nothing else, there are enough questions surrounding Bush’s last two years in the National Guard that they deserve legitimate answers, especially if he decides to pimp some pseudo-military bravado for a photo-op. Instead, the comment was greeted with less of a response than vanden Heuvel would have received if she sneezed from a member of the so-called liberal media elite.

Here is a copy of the actual transcript as copied from MSNBC.com.

MATTHEWS: Why does everybody do the wrong thing in politics now? Why are the Democrats so stupid as to attack the best picture in years from a president?

KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL, EDITOR, THE NATION: But they should go after this because it was-it was a Technicolor movie for two reasons. Look, what he’s doing on shore, hurting veterans while he’s strutting aboard that ship. And two, to be honest, Chris, this man was never - he went AWOL, you know, for a year in the National Guard.

More important, they got a lot to work with, the Democrats.

MATTHEWS: Michael Graham.

VANDEN HEUVEL: They’ve got a lot to work with.

MICHAEL GRAHAM, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: You know, Kristina (sic)...

VANDEN HEUVEL: The unemployment, the what they’re doing, this administration, to the states facing the worst crisis since the Depression. So why go after this patriotic Technicolor spectacle in the way Henry Waxman does? Let him do the corporate profiteering investigation.

GRAHAM: Katrina, you know, “X-men 2” was a multi-Technicolorful spectacle, whatever. It grossed $100 million. George W. Bush won the election when he got out of that plane and people saw how much fun he was having. It was a direct emotional visceral connection. Every time the Democrats talk about it, his numbers are going up much.
Chris, do you remember when Reagan was getting bashed in the media? They’d go out and show these press bits where he would stand in front of Grand Canyon. And they’d say, yes he’s in front of the Grand Canyon but he’s cutting money for the environment. Afterwards, his numbers went up on the environment because the pictures were so good. It’s brilliant.

The Democrats are pounding themselves in the head with a hammer. I’m with Congressman Dreier. Leave Waxman on the air for a couple weeks and Bush will be in the 90 percentile.

VANDEN HEUVEL: I care about the issue. I don’t care about...

2003-05-10T16:03:00.000-04:00

Apparently ‘peace’ means something different in Norway

Maybe somebody changed the name to the Nobel War is Peace Prize and forgot to tell everybody else.

Nothing else can create sense out of the recent action by Jan Simonsen, a right-wing independent Norway parliament member. Simonsen recently nominated United States President George W. Bush and Great Britain Prime Minister Tony Blair for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Go ahead, reread that. You weren’t seeing things. It really did state: “Simonsen recently nominated United States President George W. Bush and Great Britain Prime Minister Tony Blair for the Nobel Peace Prize.”

Whatever a person’s opinion of the war, it certainly did not qualify as a peaceful act. Giving the award to two individuals who lied a lot in order to gain support for a preemptive war would be a ridiculous act. The nomination alone is a mockery of everything the award is supposed to represent.

Blair and Bush deserve to be nominated for an Oscar, Grammy or Pulitzer Prize as much as they deserve to be nominated for an award designed to acknowledge peaceful contributions to society.

2003-05-10T16:02:00.000-04:00

Hey, hey, look at Mike

Mike Thomas’ Gorilla-a-Gogo received a main page link at Buzzflash on May 8. Reports are that Mike’s blog received a significant increase in readership that day.

Mike’s attorney advised him to not comment.

2003-05-08T12:23:00.000-04:00

Magical military uniforms

A standard military uniform must be able to protect somebody from biological or chemical weapons.

At least that is the impression a person could easily gather from looking at this photo posted at Yahoo.com.

It shows several soldiers working around what some people suspect might be a mobile Iraqi lab capable of producing weapons of mass destruction. It’s a little hard to sell that idea considering the soldiers’ attire.

They are all just dressed in basic military uniforms.

So, one of two conclusions can easily be drawn. First of all, maybe basic cloth military uniforms are capable of stopping biological and / or chemical agents from infiltrating the human body, thus making all of the toxic suits and gas masks unnecessary due to this magical fabric. Remember that exposure to even microscopic traces of these agents can lead to painful and almost instant death.

The magic fabric scenario seems unlikely. If it is true, however, the United States government should issue such clothing to every American citizen, so the US will never have to go to war again for this supposed reason. It would also be cheaper than fighting another war.

Based on this approach, terrorists could drop anthrax in somebody’s back yard and the person could survive if he wore the special jacket.

Again, that whole idea seems a little hard to believe.

More likely is the conclusion that people in charge are pretty sure there are not weapons of mass destruction at this particular site. But they know a good propaganda photo-op when they see one.

2003-05-07T01:33:00.000-04:00

You’ve got to know when to hold ‘em, know when to fold ‘em, know when to walk away, know when to not bet the children’s milk money

Does Las Vegas have a slot machine that repeats the phrase “hypocritehypocritehypocritehypocrite” instead of ringing?

Probably not.

Atlantic City probably does not have one either.

Maybe it is something slot machine designers should consider. They can call it the Bill Bennett Milk Money Jackpot. It could feature a cartoon picture of him, clutching one of his holier-than-thou conservative lifestyle books in one hand and a fistful of coins in the other.

First of all, PhugIt completely supports Bennett’s passion for gambling. Vices are good things as long as they don’t takeover a person’s life. Bet all you want, Bill Bennett. Get drunk and rent hookers if you want to do that also. Smoke a couple joints while you’re at it. But if all you want to do is gamble, then plug those machines until the crack of dawn. Lose another $8 million over the next 10 years. Go for it. Go for it all.

But he should also do another thing ... stop telling the rest of us how to live our lives. The conservative activist sort of lost whatever moral high ground he thought he had after his recent admission of being a frequent gambler. Bennett is more than welcomed to indulge in his completely legal vice. He also has the right to speak his mind about what improvements he thinks need to be made in American society.

More power to him also if he wants to give his books titles like The Book of Virtues that basically sound like he thinks they should be in the Bible with "The Book of John" and others.

However, whenever he self-righteously points the finger at everybody else for indulging in his or her particular vices, but then conveniently leaves his own off the list, he is a hypocrite. At least with people like President Clinton there was not a lot of hypocrisy. Clinton was a liar, a cheat, and an adulterer. But people knew that. He didn’t attempt to claim the moral high ground and then have his actions not represent his words. Clinton’s intentions could not have been more obvious if he wore a shirt that said “Lookin’ for Pussy” and then his phone number.

In contrast, Bennett spoke one way, but lived another way.

He defended his actions by saying he never bet with the children’s milk money. By that logic, a rich person can do whatever he wants - in terms of vices - as long as he doesn’t lose all his money.

This is not to suggest moral people cannot gamble. Millions of God-fearing, respectable, good people bet each year from the lottery to church-sponsored poker games at festivals to casino trips. Some people think gambling is a lot of fun. There is nothing wrong with that. The problem is with people like Bennett, who write books about telling other people how to live, while going overboard with their own vice.

2003-05-06T00:16:00.000-04:00

Kings of the frat house

Apparently, the University of Alabama and Iowa State University do not endorse the PhugIt philosophy.

That’s fine.

But they also will obviously not even tolerate its existence. And for that they should be ashamed.

Recently, both of those major college athletic programs took stances against the pro-stripper, pro-boozin’ lifestyle endorsed by this site. Alabama did so by firing football head coach Mike Price, who had agreed to a seven-year, $10 million contract but not signed it yet.

Alabama fired Price after learning he spent the night in a strip club then brought back one of the dancers to his hotel room where she ran up a room service tab in the neighborhood of $1,000. Price supported a legal, tax-generating business and took care of a hard-working individual for a few hours. For that he was punished. Terrible. Just terrible.

Meanwhile at Iowa State, men’s basketball head coach Larry Eustachy has until Monday to appeal a recommendation for his termination. Eustachy might lose his job after photographs surfaced of him drinking beer and kissing a few college gals on the cheek at a party. Again, these were all legal activities.

We here at PhugIt have to ask: Were these men hired as athletic coaches or the leaders of some sort of Girl Scouts jamboree? The answer is they were hired to be coaches. And that’s what they should be allowed to do.

Just think about why they got into trouble.

A football coach went to a strip club. God forbid that a grown man would like to see a nice pair of knockers bouncing in his face.

And so what, Eustachy likes to down a few beers. Good for him.

Not everybody wants to sit around and get in touch with his inner child. They want to get drunk and go to strip clubs without hurting anyone.

The idea that these character traits could hurt the programs is ridiculous. How many 18-year-old potential recruits would be turned off by the idea of playing for a coach who is cool with hanging out in strip clubs and getting drunk? That would actually win these shortsighted universities some points with most athletes.

2003-05-02T01:36:00.000-04:00

The Cheerleader in Chief

The wannabe Top Gun pilot photos will appear again.

Make no mistake about it. Landing in a plane on an aircraft carrier deck was nothing but a photo-op for President Bush. He could have made the obvious announcement about fighting ending in Iraq anywhere: the White House, a military base, or even a bathroom. Actually, a press release could have gotten the job done.

He also could have landed on the USS Abraham Lincoln by the standard helicopter mode of transportation.

But doing so would not have provided the chance for Bush to get his picture taken in his fighter pilot uniform, looking like some sort of pseudo warrior, after somebody else landed the plane. It’s almost a guarantee those photos - one of which is shown here at Fox News - will resurface during the 2004 presidential campaign.

However, it will only provide part of the picture. In order to show a complete view of President Bush, we here at PhugIt have one request of the GOP. Every time one of the wannabe swashbuckler photos appear, please balance it by showing a picture of Bush when he was a cheerleader, as shown at this link.

Yes, the same man who did his little movie star, dangerous fighter pilot thing on May 1 was a cheerleader. Rah, rah, sis, boom, bah. Kind of makes it a little harder to sell the idea of a conquering hero when you know he used to be a male cheerleader, eh?

In fairness to Bush, he was a trained pilot from his days when he served in the Texas Air National Guard, flying F-102 fighters. He served during the Vietnam era when joining the National Guard was basically a way to avoid fighting in the war. Instead, Bush saved his “war hero” days for later in life when he gave the go-ahead to crush a third-world dictator who apparently did not even have the capability to defend his own nation let alone launch an attack against another country.

And just think, if Bush had not apparently just kinda stopped showing up during the last two years of his six-year enlistment, he might have been actually able to land the plane himself.

However, the cable news networks did not seem to care much about the legitimate questions surrounding how Bush ended his days in the guard on a day filled with false bravado and military overtones. Apparently, they all forgot to read their liberal media elite strategy memos or something that day. It’s hard to imagine the topic of draft dodging would have been brushed aside so easily if President Clinton had pulled a similar stunt.

Other sources:

AWOL Bush

About.com - picture of President Bush as a cheerleader

2003-05-02T00:10:00.000-04:00

Rumsfeld’s old stomping grounds

United States Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld probably didn’t need a Baghdad travel guide when he visited Iraq this week.

Rumsfeld was there in the past long before his recent trip to Iraq to view his handy work. So, he likely knew his way around the town even after some recent missile-based remodeling. You know ... best place to catch a show, five-star restaurants - the works.

His visit was in 1983 to be exact, as shown in the photo at this link. The picture shows Rumsfeld, a representative of President Reagan’s administration at the time, flashing a smile and shaking hands with Saddam Hussein. Yes, the same Hussein who at that time had already started a war against a neighboring country (Iran), discovered his passion for weapons of mass destruction, repeatedly violated human rights, and held connections to numerous ruthless thugs.

Apparently, those were just character quirks acceptable in an ally about 20 years ago. In 2003, they were supposed justification for war. In retrospect, though, it was truly a selfless act by Rumsfeld to not take care of Hussein himself and instead let the children of other men fight a war to get rid of him. That’s what patriotism is all about.

2003-05-01T13:33:00.000-04:00

Somebody’s gonna say it

This idiotic quote just needs somebody to actually speak it: “You can see how the one true God punished the people of Turkey for not supporting America in its fight to liberate the people of Iraq by striking that country with an earthquake.”

I’m thinking Jerry Falwell is at the head of the likely contenders’ list. Then again, it just might be your neighbor. But there is a good chance somebody will express thoughts like those somewhere.

2003-05-01T02:23:00.000-04:00

Back to blogging

A bunch of blogs stayed the same the last few days.

Major sites and minor sites did not update as much as they did during the war. Some smaller content-based sites, including this one, tended to just have the same story atop the main page for a few days. Other aggregation-based sites just did not seem to have as many links provided. Credit it to a post-war letdown.

That’s not meant to suggest war is just viewed as some cheap rush by writers.

It’s just that war provides so many deep emotions and varied positions to explore and discuss. It’s just hard to get fired up about tax plans, the Kentucky Derby and a Palestinian suicide bombing in the same way. The task becomes doubly tough in the shadow of a major event like the war in Iraq.

Anyhow, that’s my excuse as to why the site was not updated for a few days. Craig over at The Meatstack addressed the same subject but in a much more in-depth and introspective way. And Mike at Gorilla-a-Gogo had not posted for a while due to computer changes.

He came down with a case of PHP or something like that.

(Note: Sorry, a direct link to Craig's story did not work. Just click on the site link and scroll down.)

2003-05-01T02:09:00.000-04:00

One reason

People should just say they want free music.

At least that is a straightforward explanation of why people like online music swapping. No bullshit. No justifications. Just honesty about getting something for nothing.

Anybody who visits music swapping websites, which all just made news in a way when the Recording Industry Association of America announced plans to send messages like “Don’t steal music” through chat features at the sites, should just spare people all of the other rationales. There is the argument that people getting music online are striking a blow against big record companies. Others state that the services expose them to new music which they then can purchase in stores, which is ludicrous since almost nobody would buy records after hearing one song when he could copy whatever he wanted for just the price of a burner and a stack of CDs.

Then there are people who argue on First Amendment lines.

Burning songs onto a CD has nothing to do with protecting freedom of speech. The freedom is with the person to express the ideas, not with the public to get the product for free. Even when Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay wrote The Federalist Papers, they didn’t just give them to people. They published them in newspapers. Somebody, somewhere made some money from them.

Believe it or not, it’s okay to turn a profit.

The idea of striking a Robin Hood-like blow against record companies is equally foolish. It all goes back to the idea that it’s legal to make money in America. It’s called capitalism. There is no legal right to cheap entertainment. Record companies are gouging prices on non-essential entertainment and they have the right to do so. People also have a right to not buy the product if they think the price is too high just like they can do with a car, a television set, a pair of shoes, or anything else.

However, individuals do not have the right to take something that belongs to somebody else, although some exceptions can at least be understood like a man stealing food for a starving family. Plus, most people really interested in music likely have at least some form of copied merchandise even if they oppose using the new technology for downloading music. If nothing else, they probably have some copied cassettes from their younger days when they did not have a lot of money to spend or understand the idea of how taping music possibly cost somebody a sale.

The current situation has gone far past that level, though. Actually, some people, who use sites like KaZaA, Grokster and Morpheus, have convoluted the issue to the point where they label the people who own the product as the thieves.

AOL recently ran a poll on its main page, asking the question: Do you think online music trading is wrong?

As of just past midnight on May 1, 2003, the results looked like this:

84% No, it's the CD prices that should be illegal - 218,703
16% Yes, stealing is illegal, period - 42,775
Total votes - 261,478

That means 84 percent thought it was a criminal act for the people who owned, created, marketed, produced and recorded the music to sell it at the price they wanted. That is absolutely ridiculous logic. It also devalues the work of musicians. By just getting music online without paying for it, the site users basically state the musicians, writers, singers, producers and other people associated with making music have no right to profit from their work.

They believe it is just a file that should be shared by anyone who wants it.

By just taking music for free online, people also basically say musicians deserve less protection than writers who create books or artists who create paintings because a song cannot be physically held. From another perspective, who would suggest it is okay to drive from gas station to gas station, take a tank of gas at each and say the goal was to experience a little of each one to see what product the person wanted to purchase?

Musicians have a right to control their product, just like writers or artists, even to the point of passing along the ownership to their children after they die. If people can pass along items like money and bonds or even a toilet brush, then why shouldn’t musicians be allowed to pass the rights to songs to somebody in their wills?

People should equally be allowed to give away their music for free online. More power to them if they want to do so. It is a great tool to create exposure.

But the musicians and record companies should have the final say. They made the products.

With all of that being stated, there is no denying the power of this new music outlet. There is no denying it is a fun and easy way to get music. Many people who do not support the file-sharing approach to getting music have likely received burnt CDs as gifts from friends or family members. Who would actually say, “No, I can’t accept this gift that you went through the trouble of making for me in your spare time because I don’t believe in file sharing”? Many of them also likely have a stack of tapes they recorded from other sources years ago.

Although it can be considered the same degree of theft, there is nobody who will claim a copied cassette is of the same quality as the original product - unlike a burnt CD from a computer. Plus, there are not too many people who likely based their entire cassette collection around copied tapes. In contrast, free online music sharing will basically raise a generation that thinks it does not have to pay for music.

In contrast to online music swapping, groups and record companies often encouraged such tape trading in order to build a fan base. Record companies did not object to people making copies of tapes because they knew that legitimately increased the chances of people deciding to buy a band’s product in the future.

Online trading basically guarantees the opposite will happen because people will have no need to buy CDs. That is the danger. In the old days of tape trading, people made copies of copies of copies and passed them to other people. The process was slow at best. By the time somebody created a third-generation copy, the music was muted and likely static-filled.

In contrast to tape trading where many people had to buy the product, in theory, only one person has to buy a CD nowadays. The person can then put it online, making it possible for anybody with a computer to get it. In an absolutely farfetched scenario, millions of people could get a CD quality recording as good as the original from just one person purchasing it.

And that highlights the one main aspect of music swapping that its defenders should only argue: they like to get free music.

2003-04-28T00:38:00.000-04:00

Polytycal Skynyrd and the Dixie Chicks

It’s like a law. A Lynyrd Skynyrd law. When the words “turn it up” are spoken at the start of Sweet Home Alabama, a person legally has to turn up the volume of a car stereo. Okay, maybe it’s only a law in the Deep South and Western Pennsylvania.

Unfortunately, pro-peace supporters have to hate Lynyrd Skynyrd now ... at least if judged by the Dixie Chicks standard. So, they can no longer increase the volume at the start of that song. In fact, they have to take all of their Lynyrd Skynyrd albums and destroy them, even the ones with Sweet Home Alabama on them.

Even though some individuals have listened to the band for the better part of their lives, they are not allowed to like them anymore because Lynyrd Skynyrd expressed a political opinion opposite of their beliefs in the pro-war song Red, White and Blue off the soon-to-be-released "Vicious Cycle" record. Isn’t that the lesson learned from the Dixie Chicks?

Of course that is a ridiculous standard for judging music.

It seems stupid just to even read that scenario.

But some people are living it right now.

The Dixie Chicks featured one of the hottest selling albums in the country called Home during 2003. Then, a member of the group made comments against President Bush onstage in London on March 10. People responded by not buying the album anymore. From its first week on the charts in early September 2002, the album never sold less than 80,000 copies during any week.

It actually sold 777,420 copies during the first week of release.

Before the controversy really started, the album again posted impressive sales, as shown by the number of units counted in the March 17 tally - 123,436. Then came the bad noise and the declining sales. And they were sharp. The album sold only 30,952 copies for the week of April 14, according to numbers collected at Judy’s Dixie Chicks Henhouse.

The supposed logic behind the drop is ridiculous. The idea that people would decide what music they like based on political opinions of a group that does not deal with many serious social issues in its music is foolish. The Dixie Chicks music and political views are separate unlike say with Bob Dylan. It would be illogical for a person to buy a Dylan record if she or he disagreed with his politics because his lyrics often discuss political and social issues from an opinionated point of view. Of course an average conservative is not going to buy a record with the song Blowin’ in the Wind on it. That just makes sense.

However, the Dixie Chicks basically steer clear of serious issues in their music. They record some basic country songs with a mix of pop. Similarly, Lynyrd Skynyrd plays standard southern rock music basically based around drinking with only an occasional political or social reference to something like Watergate.

Obviously, people decided what music they like based on a subject irrelevant to the music. In fact, they seemed to like the music just fine a few days earlier when the Dixie Chicks sold 867,000 tickets to 59 different shows just on March 1, selling out 51 of the dates.

Just a few weeks later, people did not all of a sudden find the Dixie Chicks’ chord progressions, harmonies and lyrics offensive. They objected to a political opinion. And it wasn’t a freakish opinion, like if some group suddenly started making pro-pedophilia statements. A case could easily be made for not giving money to people who support something like that.

But the Dixie Chicks simply expressed an opinion supported by many individuals. Many musicians also likely supported the same opinions but kept them quiet in order to avoid a hit at the record store counter.

Lynyrd Skynyrd also expressed an opinion that many people supported. Many of their fans likely disagree with opinion. Many more probably agree. But you won’t find too many people who disagree with the band’s war opinion suddenly lying to themselves and saying they don’t like Sweet Home Alabama. They will just listen to the new song in concert, while maybe making some jokes about it. They will also probably fast forward over it on the CD.

But they’re still going to burn their fingers on the metal tip of a lighter when calling for Freebird.

"Home" album sales - as copied from Judy’s Dixie Chicks Henhouse
week ending - sales
9/02 -- 777,420
9/09 -- 379,165
9/16 -- 214,265
9/23 -- 170,664
9/30 -- 136,267
10/07 -- 130,568
10/14 -- 99,779
10/21 -- 109,379
10/28 -- 104,121
11/04 -- 87,457
11/11 -- 83,919
11/18 -- 87,956
11/25 -- 90,246
12/02 -- 140,492
12/09 -- 135,788
12/16 -- 286,612
*12/23 -- 401,000
**12/30 -- 255,315
1/06 -- 97,833
1/13 -- 80,846
1/20 -- 82,792
1/27 -- 80,399
2/03 -- 101,146
2/10 -- 108,391
2/17 -- 161,115
2/24 -- 111,268
3/03 -- 206,764
3/10 -- 140,130
3/17 -- 123,436
3/24 -- 70,026
3/31 -- 45,350
4/07 -- 36,286
4/14 -- 30,952
4/21 -- 42,834
Total sold -- 5,209,981
*Weekly total obtained from news story due to the regular data chart taking a holiday this week.
** Weekly total based on year end figures due to the regular data chart still taking a holiday.
NOTE: The RIAA certifies albums shipped and not sold. The above figures are actual sales and do not coincide with platinum certifications.

2003-04-28T00:22:00.000-04:00

Ain’t that America something to see, baby (Yes, that was blatantly borrowed from John Mellencamp)

Rolling Ad Circular, ummm, make that Rolling Stone, can still get it right.

Although the magazine is a far cry from what it was or what it could be, it still can really do some good stuff when it wants to do so. The May 15, 2003 issue (#922) is such an example. Amid the numerous beautiful-people advertisements and 900 porn numbers, the magazine features several pages in the 35th Anniversary Special commemorating American Icons.

The series of articles celebrates the beauty of simple pleasures in American culture: the blonde bombshell; the music of Bruce Springsteen, Elvis Presley and Bob Dylan; Stratocasters; Harley-Davidsons; Homer Simpson; Mustangs, Cadillacs and Corvettes; Muhammad Ali; concert T-shirts; Jack Daniel’s; Converse All Stars; and several other icons of American culture.

There is also an article by Bill Moyers called “Reclaiming the Flag” on a page that features a chronology of the use of the American flag on the cover of the Rolling Stone, including in relation to Hunter S. Thompson, Willie Nelson, Bob Hope, Bruce Springsteen, Kid Rock, 9.11.01, Britney Spears, Homer Simpson, and others.

It features possibly the best explanation of why patriotism cannot be based on how many times a person wears a flag: “It no more occurred to me to flaunt the flag on my chest than it did to pin my mother’s picture on my lapel to prove her son’s love. Mother knew where I stood; so does my country.”

2003-04-28T00:20:00.000-04:00

Thanks Mike

Yep, I had to look up ‘acerbic’ in the dictionary. So what.

In case you are wondering what that means, it’s a reference to some comments and compliments made by Mike at Gorilla-a-Gogo when he discussed a recent PhugIt piece concerning picking Syria or Iran as a new enemy for the Bush war machine.

Mike made a reference to ‘acerbic wit’ in his comments.

Upon checking a copy of The Reader’s Digest Great Encyclopedic Dictionary that was likely published in the 1960s, I took the statement as a compliment. I learned something new from the 3.5-inch-thick dictionary that is missing some of the A section, includes numerous torn pages that likely include the date somewhere, and features a restored binding consisting of a bunch of duct tape all due to its previous duty as a doorstop for a couple of years. I learned that acerb means sour and astringent; harsh; sharp.

That’s the most sophisticated way I have ever been called a pissed-off smart-ass.

Thanks again, Mike.

2003-04-28T00:17:00.000-04:00

The mysterious archives

No, the vanishing archives are not a planned feature here at PhugIt.

They’ve just been disappearing on occasion. It’s no major concern, though. The problem is so easy to fix that even I can do it. And I have almost no computer skills whatsoever.

It’s just a glitch with the template or something.

So, don’t worry if you don’t see them all the time.

2003-04-26T02:06:00.000-04:00

It’s time for Britney’s naked political statement

Please let war supporters get mad at Britney Spears.

Let them get furious at her for anything, just so long as they start calling her an un-American supporter of Saddam Hussein. Of course, she would likely have to make some sort of political statement in order to agitate them to the point where they would label her that way. So, it probably won’t happen since a person with her shallow mind, firm ass and perky breasts was not exactly put on Earth to debate serious topics.

But we can hope.

We need them to get outraged at Spears, so she might pose nude for some magazine. The precedent has been set. This week’s edition of Entertainment Weekly features a picture of the three members of the Dixie Chicks, as shown at this link. And they’re naked. Well, they’re naked with phrases like “Free Speech” and “Saddam’s Angels” written on them in black.

The cover is in response to the backlash the group received after lead singer Natalie Maines said she was ashamed President Bush was from Texas. She made the comment onstage during a March 10 concert in London, leading to the banning of their songs from numerous country radio stations, decreased record sales and increased death threats.

However, after all of those events, the end result was nudity just over one month later.

The Dixie Chicks are decent enough looking. But Britney ... that’s a different story.

If the right wing gets equally upset at Spears for some comment, then she finally might get motivated enough to get into Playboy, like she should have done a long time ago. Or Penthouse. Or T.V. Guide. Or Entertainment Weekly. Or National Geographic. Or any publication that will show her naked.

The same applies to Anna Kournikova.

Maybe they can make a statement together.

(Note: At least the government is leaving the blacklisting of musicians and actors to radio stations and the Baseball Hall of Fame. That’s at least an improvement from the 1950s when the government handled the blackballing itself. Guess you have to give the modern conservative movement credit in that case. Its supporters have actually followed through with one aspect of the familiar less-government mantra. Of course it was in the area of attempting to silence people with differing viewpoints. So, that’s not too good.

Here’s another differing viewpoint. Bruce Springsteen recently published a few paragraphs at BruceSpringsteen.net in support of the Dixie Chicks. Apparently those looking to attack people who spoke in opposition to the war must have felt the Dixie Chicks were an easier target than Springsteen. On March 2, 2003, Springsteen played War for the first time on his current tour. He opened a show with the pro-peace song in President Bush’s old backyard of Austin, TX.

Not a word was mentioned in the national news.

He is also playing a song in sound checks called Devils and Dust, which seems relatively self-explanatory. There is a good chance the song will debut during an upcoming European leg of his tour. And you can bet if war supporters object to the song, they will mention how he debuted it outside of America and not here, as if that was a cowardly act. That was exactly one of the criticisms sounded against the Dixie Chicks. To do that however, they would have to ignore years of Springsteen’s music and the fact he played War in America and repeatedly spoke out against the war prior to playing Born in the U.S.A. - one of the most misunderstood songs in rock history - during his recent tour.)

2003-04-25T03:06:00.000-04:00

Libertarian Road Trip

Silly Libertarians, don’t they know they have to wander around Arizona for 40 years before finding a new home?

In order to follow the most famous handbook for finding a new homeland - that written by the Jews - the Libertarians would have to wander through a desert for four decades before arriving. Arizona and New Mexico seem like the most likely candidates in America. But alas, the Libertarians want immediate gratification.

There is no scheduled wandering for these 3,100 would-be Constitutional scholars looking to build their ideal society based on smaller government and less intrusion into individual lives and businesses, which has some good points (lower taxes, legalization of consensual acts) and some foolhardy points (trusting businesses to not spew massive amounts of toxins into the air without regulations, school privatization).

The group, apparently responding to the 2000 election when the Libertarian party lost the presidential race by a slim margin of just over 50 million votes, decided to pick a sparsely-populated state in which to setup a community called the Free State.

According to an Associated Press article written by Nicholas K. Geranios and featured in the Casper Star Tribune:

“When the number of registered Free State supporters reaches 5,000, likely by the end of the year, they will vote on which state to target. Then supporters will have five years to move, with a goal of 20,000 Free Staters living there.”

Group members have whittled the choices down to 10 states: Idaho, Montana, Alaska, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, New Hampshire, Maine, Delaware and Vermont. The odds are good the wandering Libertarians have done something the official party failed to ever do. They likely managed to unite nine states behind at least one of their causes.

Take for instance the cause of the Libertarian traveling show moving to North Dakota. The other nine states on the list likely stand firmly behind that choice.

Then take for instance the cause of the Libertarian traveling show moving to Idaho. The other nine states on the list likely stand firmly behind that choice.

Etc. Etc.

2003-04-24T00:40:00.000-04:00

Ummmmmm, booze

Drinking to the point where a person is labeled a “drunk” is possibly the best thing an individual can do with his life.

Few people will admit that fact, let alone celebrate it. We celebrate it here at PhugIt and so do the good people at Modern Drunkard Magazine. It is the best non-porn website on the Internet.

The site recently updated and currently features a series of new articles, including The Zen of Drinking Alone, Urban Legends of Alcohol, and How to Ace an Intervention. It also features the Clash of the Tightest semifinals - a drinking contest between 16 of the world’s best all-time boozers. However, PhugIt is considering filing an official protest over the result of the Ernest Hemingway versus Jackie Gleason match.

Papa got robbed.

Check out the site here.

2003-04-23T23:50:00.000-04:00

Stick to your intolerance, Rick

“I’m sorry,” should not pass Senator Rick Santorum’s lips.

Whatever a person thinks about his belief that consensual sex between people of the same gender is comparable to a brother humping a sister, he should not beg forgiveness for his statement. In case you don’t know, here is the statement that recently landed Santorum, a Republican Senator from Pennsylvania, in the midst of a controversy:

"We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that [have] sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn’t exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold — Griswold was the contraceptive case — and abortion. And now we’re just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you — this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it’s my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that’s antithetical to strong, healthy families. Whether it’s polygamy, whether it’s adultery, where it’s sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family." - (Quote found at MSNBC.com)

No apology should be given because that is what Santorum believes. Right or wrong, he stated his mind. Santorum believes any act that is not based around the idea of a traditional family concept is wrong. He shouldn’t apologize. Whether or not his colleagues in the Senate or Pennsylvania voters decide to reprimand him is another subject.

But if he apologizes, Santorum will look like a coward who is just trying to cover his ass.

That was what happened to Mississippi Senator Trent Lott (R).

Several months ago, Lott made statements that America would have been a better place if Strom Thurmond won the presidency in 1948. At that time, Thurmond ran on a platform where a main prong was the segregation of races. That created the controversy.

Lott believed in what he said about Thurmond. Of course there was some racism in Lott’s statements. He shouldn’t have apologized, though, because he believed in what he stated or he would not have made similar statements about race throughout his life. If other senators or Mississippi voters felt action was necessary, then fine.

But Lott looked foolish when he repeatedly apologized, especially when he appeared on Black Entertainment Television, because he stated he was sorry for making a statement that he obviously supported.

The same thing would happen to Santorum.

2003-04-23T23:48:00.000-04:00

Santorum’s wordplay

Is this statement supposed to be a riddle?

“I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts. As I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships. And that includes a variety of different acts, not just homosexual. I have nothing, absolutely nothing against anyone who’s homosexual. If that’s their orientation, then I accept that. And I have no problem with someone who has other orientations. The question is, do you act upon those orientations? So it’s not the person, it’s the person’s actions. And you have to separate the person from their actions.” - United States Senator Rick Santorum (PA-R) in response to the question “I mean, should we outlaw homosexuality?” during an interview with an Associated Press reporter on April 7 that was reprinted verbatim at MSNBC.com.

In a follow-up question, Santorum then made his statement comparing homosexuality to incest, bigamy and adultery that has drawn flack from several groups and individuals.

The above statement is absolute gibberish. Convoluted gibberish at that.

First of all, you can take any reference to homosexuality out of the statement and replace it with any other issue or topic and it would still sound like a riddle. Hell, replace it with the phrase “chicken wing eating” for all it matters. It’s still a statement that runs in circles.

The idea seems to be that a person is wrong if they act upon feelings Santorum does not condone. His own statement suggests Santorum is okay with homosexuality as long as the individual represses and denies her or his true feelings. That’s foolish. It’s also self-destructive to the person. Basically, he is saying homosexuals should live out their lives in repression and denial.

Santorum’s most ridiculous statement from that quote is the last sentence - “And you have to separate the person from their actions.” No, you don’t. Quite the contrary, a person is basically a collection of his actions and his thoughts. The less of a gap between a person’s beliefs, desires and orientations and his actions, the happier a person tends to be - whether they are homosexuals or chicken wing eaters.

2003-04-22T20:16:00.000-04:00

Stolen artifacts and country music

Care to bet President Bush uttered something like, “What do you mean I have cultural advisers?”

Come on, you know he probably spoke words like those when he learned Martin Sullivan, chairman of the President's Advisory Committee on Cultural Property, announced his resignation from the post he held since 1995. Bush is a man whose idea of serious artistic discussion likely revolves around debating the differences between country music and western music.

Sullivan and two other committee members announced their resignations after the Bush administration basically appeared indifferent toward looting at Iraq's National Museum of Antiquities. The lawlessness resulted in the loss and destruction of priceless artifacts that chronicled the history of the cradle of civilization.

But what the hell? What do a couple of museum pieces matter anyhow?

Here is a link for more details about the resignations.

2003-04-22T18:53:00.000-04:00

Happy Shut the Hell Up Day

So, I’m sitting here lighting a cigar with a burning piece of Styrofoam from a fast food package when I realize ... it’s Earth Day.

Happy Earth Day everybody.

On a day like this, one can’t help but be reminded of the phrase, “Shut the hell up, you idiot,” since just about no other annual event brings out people with ill-informed and blindly ideological opinions on both sides. One group shouts about how anybody who eats a Big Mac is murdering a living thing and destroying the environment. Those individuals also collectively celebrate their own self-righteousness by questioning why people hundreds of miles away from the nearest spotted owl do not care about every bird like they do.

The opposing shouters are equally annoying and illogical.

They will readily explain how spitting toxins out of vehicles really isn’t too harmful for the environment. They’ll also take any suggestion of recycling and preserving wilderness - other than their favorite hunting lands - as shots at their manhood by those no-good hippies who are trying to ruin America.

Guess what. Many people like the taste of burgers and draw a difference between the rights of humans and the rights of animals. They are not hell-bent on pillaging the land. They’re just hungry.

On the other hand, believe it or not, throwing your glass and plastic garbage into a separate blue container from the rest of your trash is not some conspiracy to destroy capitalism and a way of life. It’s just a good thing to do. Plus, it takes basically no effort.

Unfortunately, this issue really brings out the shouting idiots, who try to turn it into a face-off between no-questions-asked ideological positions. Here is a suggestion to them. Shut up and go away. Please just let the vast majority of people in the middle handle this issue.

Most people want to make sure the environment is left in better shape than when they received it. People understand that trees must be cut down to make way for business sometimes. They equally understand that the preservation of land is important and that a slash-at-will policy where the statement “it’s just capitalism” is used as a defense is flawed.

People also understand there are better alternatives that should be explored. There are consequences to each plan, though. Windmill power will kill some birds in the blades. Hydroelectric will kill some fish. Is it better to kill humans for oil, though?

Sound environmental policies come from just acknowledging the obvious. First of all, people are not going to stop eating beef. Give it up. America is not going vegetarian. Cows are going to die. Shut your mouth, let people enjoy their steaks, understand that people are not going to consider every geopolitical and environmental ramification when buying a pound of ground beef, and try to fight a battle that you even have a remote chance of winning.

On the other side, only an idiot could look at the exhaust spewing from a bus and think there would not be side effects. How dimwitted and / or blindly ideological could a person be to see a puff of black poison filling the air and think nothing bad can happen?

But those are things people who live to be labeled - as either a pure environmentalist or somebody who is not going to let the no-good hippies tell him how to live - must do sometimes in order to fit the description they want to apply to themselves. A person determined to be labeled a true, 100-percent environmentalist on every issue has to defend stances like trying to convince 1 million Pennsylvania hunters the benefits of turning vegetarian. Other times, people have to deny the obvious in order to fit their label by looking at a picture of the cloud of poison hanging above Mexico City or Los Angeles and say, “Nope, I don’t see a connection,” for example.

Most people don’t fit into those categories. They understand cows will die, but they also want good, clean, healthy food. They also don’t lie to themselves about what occurs plainly in front of their faces. Those individuals might not care much about environmental issues, but they don’t put themselves into ridiculous ideological boxes where they either have to fight foolish causes or deny what is evident to the naked eye.

And do you know what most people like those did for Earth Day? Probably nothing except go about living their lives and hopefully buying recycled paper for their home printers.

2003-04-22T18:52:00.000-04:00

Nazi talk

“But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” -- Hermann Goering.

Sound familiar?

In perspective of that quote, how many people can honestly state they felt an overwhelming sense of fear about what Saddam Hussein might do to America before the Bush administration mentioned Iraq as a potential enemy?

The question is not whether they thought he was a bad guy. He was. It’s not the same question, though.

But how many Americans ever tucked in their children and thought, “My God, if Saddam Hussein is not stopped, then the United States as I know it might no longer exist for my son and daughter”?

(Explanation: “One of the first things the Nazis did was ...”

People end that sentence with a lot of causes from gun control issues to abortion issues. They basically do so in order to support their own point of view and make opposing people seem like evil hate-mongers determined to destroy the world.

Unfortunately, people throw around comparisons to Nazis too lightly anymore. Whether it is a person like Rush Limbaugh using the phrase “Feminazi” or some protester calling a cop a Nazi whenever he gets arrested for trespassing, in most cases, the comparison basically shows the user’s ignorance and intolerance of varied opinions.

In general, it is a comparison used by people with weak minds with little understanding of history. To compare the feminist movement or a cop doing his job to Nazis ridicules what people who survived the Nazis underwent. The group killed millions of people in concentration camps, started a world war, attempted to exterminate an entire race, and ravaged a continent.

There is basically no other comparison in history to what they did. There are some similar travesties at best, but on smaller scales.

With all of that being stated, the quote seemed frightfully and painfully appropriate at this time of war with Iraq. Mentioning it is not meant to suggest war supporters are Nazis. They are not. That was the entire point of the previous paragraphs.

It just seemed too appropriate to not mention. It just so happens a high-ranking Nazi made it. But it is not meant to draw any comparison.)

2003-04-22T18:51:00.000-04:00

Go to The Meatstack

Craig at The Meatstack examined Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum’s recent comments about homosexuals from a different perspective than you will likely see anywhere else.

If you check this link to his article, you will not only find his story, but you will notice he suggested you would find something about the issue here. However, there was no reason to restate what Craig did so good at his site.

Basically, he asked what was creepier - sex between two people of the same gender or the way Santorum brought home his dead baby for his other children to see?

Go to The Meatstack for more details. The only detail PhugIt cares to add is to ask what kind of holier-than-thou, towering, Jesus-based, mental mind fuck does a person view the world through in order to bring home a corpse to show his children?

Along with Craig’s site, here is a link to Lara Jakes Jordan’s 4-20-03 Associated Press article as reprinted in the Las Vegas Sun. Check out the last paragraph for details about Santorum bringing a corpse home for his children to touch.

Here is Santorum's gay quote for perspective:

"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything."

2003-04-22T18:46:00.000-04:00

War quotes

General Douglas MacArthur and United States Representative Daniel Webster must have threatened the lives of American soldiers. Of course, that’s only true if a person uses the standard that making critical statements about war - even in general as opposed to a specific fight - when American troops are fighting is anti-American and harmful.

That is wrong.

However, many hawks have expressed those exact sentiments during the war with Iraq.

If that is the case, then MacArthur must join the list. With the Korean War waging on May 15, 1951, MacArthur, one of the most decorated and celebrated men in United States military history stated, "It is part of the general pattern of misguided policy that our country is now geared to an arms economy which was bred in an artificially induced psychosis of war hysteria and nurtured upon an incessant propaganda of fear."

His statements came generations after Webster, one of America’s most gifted orators, noted, “Who will show me any Constitutional injunction which makes it the duty of the American people to surrender everything valuable in life, and even life, itself, whenever the purposes of an ambitious and mischievous government may require it?” His statement - one that came in the larger context of a speech against forced conscription - came on January 14, 1814 during the War of 1812.

Those are both statements that would get replayed, dissected, criticized and labeled as unpatriotic by numerous radio talk show hosts and cable news network talking heads if spoken by a liberal today.

MacArthur and Webster were not alone, though.

Other noteworthy Americans made comments that would probably be labeled as un-American in the current climate in which blind acceptance is celebrated and questioning policy is labeled as harmful.

Just consider:

"War is as much a punishment to the punisher as it is to the sufferer."
—Thomas Jefferson

"Never has there been a good war or a bad peace."
—Benjamin Franklin

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in a final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed—those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending its money alone—it is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children."
—Dwight Eisenhower

Certainly, none of those individuals were utopian pacifists or anything along those lines. Maybe all of them would have supported war with Iraq. Maybe none of them would have done so.

Both MacArthur and Eisenhower helped freedom spread across the world thanks to their military service. Franklin, Jefferson and Webster all lived through war on their homeland. That is why they all understood war and how it should only be used as a last resort when liberty is genuinely threatened.

They all understood that war is nothing to celebrate and that a man can speak out against blood and murder without being weak. In contrast, many people who opposed the war with Iraq were labeled as anti-Americans who did not understand the cost of freedom. Millions were labeled that way even if they supported the war in Afghanistan just months earlier. Pro-peace supporters were criticized in that way for simply differentiating between the two conflicts.

2003-04-20T23:40:00.000-04:00

Happy April 20, 2003

Wow, Adolph Hitler’s birthday, Easter and 4-20 all fell on the same day. How did your average stoner Christian Nazi find enough hours in the day to properly celebrate each one? Since in-depth research has indicated the average PhugIt reader is indeed a stoner Christian Nazi, please feel free to send us an e-mail detailing how you combined the three.

Click this link to write an e-mail to PhugIt and explain how you spent Easter Nazi Stoner Day 2003.

2003-04-18T21:06:00.000-04:00

Help wanted

Looking for one bloodhound capable of sniffing out weapons of mass destruction. Must enjoy desert climate, camouflage clothing, MREs, and not questioning authority. Duties include finding any chemical or biological agents in Iraq that no human has discovered yet. Speed is important. Dog must help create justification for recent military action against Iraq. The successful candidate will serve country by preventing those in power from launching project Plant Weapons in Order to Justify War. Benefits. Non-EOE.

Salary negotiable.

Don’t mess with Texas.

Call George Dubya.

2003-04-18T21:04:00.000-04:00

Alive or dead? Yes, it matters

Apparently, it is now irrelevant if Saddam Hussein is possibly still alive and holding a few tubes filled with deadly biological agents. At least that seems to be the message from some war supporters.

That opinion was expressed in a way following the release of an Abu Dhabi video supposedly showing Hussein speaking to supporters on April 9. People did not say that directly, but their statements led to that conclusion even if they did not know it.

First of all, who knows if the recently released video actually shows the real Hussein or is really from the day after United States forces hit a target where he was suspected to be located? It’s too tough to tell.

However, several hawkish politicians and those in the military stated it is irrelevant if he is alive or dead. That brings up several points. The dismissal of its importance is curious. If it is irrelevant whether Hussein is alive or dead, then why did the United States military launch two specific attacks that were basically designed for no other reason than to kill him?

The military even started the war ahead of schedule to specifically take a shot at him.

People who stress the issue’s irrelevancy also emphasize the point that it does not matter since he is no longer in power either way. That’s a valid point.

However, this man was billed as an Adolph Hitler of his generation who was hell-bent on destroying America. How is it irrelevant whether a man labeled in such a way is alive or dead? It would seem a matter of extreme importance when viewed in that perspective, especially if people believed he possessed weapons of mass destruction. If he is alive, Hussein could be on the run with a few tubes filled with chemicals that could kill hundreds of thousands of people, right?

He could still be hiding in shadows, associating with terrorists and planning to give them anthrax or other agents. Wasn’t that one of the reasons given for the war? Weren’t American citizens supposed to be afraid because of that exact reason? Couldn’t he still be doing those things even if he lost control of his nation?

It would seem that war supporters could only dismiss the importance of his existence if they did not truly feel threatened by the weapons of mass destruction excuse in the first place.

2003-04-18T21:03:00.000-04:00

An open letter to Da Bears fans

No combination of greasy pork products or cold beer will ease the pain. And trust us Pittsburgh Steelers fans. We know.

You can cram all the fatty foods and booze you want into yourself, but when Kordell Stewart starts crying on the sidelines or throwing interceptions at key moments, nothing will help. You’ll just run him out of town and wonder why Da Bears signed him as a quarterback in the first place.

That’s what the Steelers did.

So, enjoy the fun times now when he is not actually on the field.

And you do seem to be enjoying the good times right now. Numerous reports have chronicled what a find Chicago Bears fans think Stewart was. Some articles have even ridiculed the Pittsburgh Steelers for not understanding Stewart or taking advantage of his abilities.

Heck, Stewart even appears to be a darling of the Chicago scene now, having sung Take Me Out to The Ballgame at a recent Chicago Cubs game. If he had done the same thing during a Pittsburgh Pirates game, he would have needed a security escort.

Like was stated earlier, enjoy the good times now. They won’t last.

And don’t come crying to us when they end. We warned you.

2003-04-18T21:02:00.000-04:00

Time to pick a new enemy

Bet you didn’t know we were supposed to be afraid of Syria now, did you?

Or is that Iran? Yep, maybe it’s Iran.

Well, here’s a tip - don’t rush into being afraid. Wait until the Bush administration tells us who to fear more - Iran or Syria. We’d hate to be afraid of the wrong nation and look foolish in front of our neighbors. So, wait until we hear confirmation of which country is the supposed bigger threat to America’s complete existence. Then we can learn the names of their leaders on the Internet and go around telling people the Clinton administration should have dealt with them years ago.

Okay, we can let other people do that come to think about it.

And make no mistake about it, something like that will probably happen. If the Bush administration handles the situation in Iran or Syria like it did in Iraq, then millions of people who could not find either nation on a map or tell you much of anything about the countries will convince themselves they are completely afraid of them because they think it is the patriotic thing to do.

Right now, the Bush administration is starting to mention Syria for allegedly testing weapons of mass destruction within the last 18 months. Why was this not mentioned earlier in a major way if it is such a concern?

The government is also accusing Syria of letting wanted Iraqis run into the country. So what? Those individuals were utterly incapable of doing anything against the United States military when they were in charge of a nation and hundreds of thousands of soldiers. How much of a threat will they provide now when living underground in Syria? Will they provide the Syrian government inside information about how to run as fast as possible from the American armed forces?

If a person did not support the war with Iraq in the first place, then there is no reason to support an invasion supposedly designed to capture people who escaped the battle.

Oddly enough, though, the war with Iraq started with just a few similar comments approximately one year ago. Now, here we go again planting the seeds of another possible war. We’re just apparently waiting for somebody to pick the enemy.

None of this is meant to condone Syria’s actions. That country is run by some bad guys. But they are bad guys who have not done anything to the United States in recent years. There is no point to rehash everything about the lies and deceptions used to force the war with Iraq in comparison to America’s yet-unnamed enemy. Instead, you can just read a basic pro-peace story about Iraq and substitute the word “Syria” or “Iran” now ... right down to the oil.

But the bad-guy justification is the best thing for people who want to push Middle East wars. They’re even better than the old Soviet Union for people who like to make sure there is a sufficiently scared American population, so they can basically do what they want to do and justify their actions by saying they are protecting America. The Soviet’s tyrannical influence could not even offer anything as remotely this good to people like them.

While the Soviet Union’s web of terror covered much of Europe, it was basically one block. America could not attempt to free a country like East Germany without getting into a war with the USSR. As opposed to that solid block, dozens of separate and independent dictators rule the land from northern Africa to the Chinese border. They will provide numerous opportunities for American politicians to sidetrack United States’ citizens for decades to come.

A few years from now, if the economy is bad, a president will be able to paint some leader as a devil, sidetrack Americans from domestic problems and then whip the supposed threat to the world in three weeks. The precedent has been set. The same will probably be true 10, 15, 20, 25 or more years from now. War profiteers could not ask for a better scenario.

They will also have a built-in base of flag wavers willing to label anyone opposed to the military actions as un-American. They will also continue to throw out hollow words about how war protesters have forgotten the lessons of 9-11 and history.

And they’ll just keep picking new enemies.

2003-04-18T14:01:00.000-04:00

Celebrity liberalism is just logical

Watching people find conspiracies in simple logic is amusing. Sad, but amusing.

Just listen to conservatives rant about liberals in Hollywood for an example. Many GOP backers eagerly and enthusiastically discuss how the movie, television, literature and music industries are run by liberals, as shown by the recent uproar concerning pro-peace comments made by Tim Robbins that led to the cancellation of a planned tribute to his movie Bull Durham at the Baseball Hall of Fame. They make the pronouncement like it is the discovery of some deep, hidden conspiracy by the entertainment businesses to take over American culture.

First of all, let’s just state one thing clearly: Yes, people with liberal mindsets primarily run those businesses. There, ohhhhhh, it’s out in the open. But it’s not a conspiracy. It’s simple logic.

Acting, writing and making music are crafts that lend themselves to liberal natures. They are professions that almost demand them. Basically by definition, a good artist - whether he expresses himself through music, drawing, acting or another outlet - needs to have a liberal and open mind in order to improve his craft. Just about any artist who enters his profession with a constricted outlook on his work will fail because his art will never grow.

He must be willing to explore other cultures, philosophies and techniques in order to bring new elements to his work. Logic would then suggest a person in a profession that demands a liberal artistic mind would also have a liberal political mind. It’s no different than how gun shop owners tend to be conservative. It’s not a conspiracy by conservatives to take over American culture through gun shop owners. It’s just an occupation that attracts people with conservative mindsets.

Of course, there are exceptions to both generalities, like country musician Travis Tritt and actor Charlton Heston.

Oddly enough, conservatives seldom seem to object when those individuals politically speak their minds because they agree with the message. That seems to suggest it is the message - and not necessarily the messenger - they find objectionable.

That’s called hypocrisy.

Granted, there are plenty of celebrities who crave attention and do anything to find a camera. Then they just use causes for self-serving measures. But there are plenty of them who just see their celebrity as a vehicle they can use to help promote causes they support. Many people do this. A carpenter might donate a chair he made to a local church auction designed to raise money for a new sidewalk by the building. A baker might make a cake for a school bake sale designed to help get gym equipment.

They do so because those are their talents and the best vehicles for them to help society in a way they feel is appropriate. Even though the sentiments are the same, there is a major difference. Unlike most bakers and carpenters, celebrities have a powerful tool at their disposal - it is the camera in front of their face. They are not fools. The cameras are there and they take full advantage of them for a mixture of noble reasons, idiotic reasons, thoughtful reasons, and self-promoting reasons.

Some are well spoken and thoughtful in their positions like Robbins was in his address to the National Press Club about the Bull Durham incident. Others are not so well spoken and thoughtful. When they shoot off their mouths in an uninformed way, the camera is still there. And they look foolish. It’s a double-edged sword.

However, making illogical and poorly designed statements does not make their point any more foolish than a conservative who expresses an ill-informed opinion without a camera in front of him. Nor does it make the celebrity’s point any more valid than those of intelligent ones expressed by an unknown conservative gun shop owner.

It just means more people hear it.

2003-04-18T13:58:00.000-04:00

The Gorilla is running again

As far as the world knew, Mike at Gorilla-a-Gogo might have been lost to us in a horribly off-base military strike designed to target Saddam Hussein that somehow hit Pittsburgh, PA instead. Like the Iraqi dictator, Mike had not sent an independently verifiable message to his people in a while.

In fact, his blog did not have any new posts for over two weeks.

It was also rumored he used a body double to give his best man toast at a friend’s wedding last Saturday. The rumor was proven false when he unleashed an obscenity-filled tirade into a karaoke microphone when the rest of the bridal party tricked him into joining them in singing one of the worst songs ever written in American history called Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue at a post-reception bar visit.

Oh wait, that was somebody else who did that. Who was that? Who was that? Hmmmmmm?

Maybe that wasn’t Mike at the bar. Many events surrounding that night are foggy. Details are sketchy at best. Tie theft was rampant. The least stated the better in case of future legal problems.

Anyhow, Mike is back posting again after what he called “an unholy convergence of work, personal commitments and tax season.” His new post is a lengthy examination of the neoconservatives’ world view, evolution, and policy toward Iraq.

(Note: I came across a parody of Toby Keith’s Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue when looking for the lyrics. It’s a shame to call it a parody because it’s a far superior song to the original. The song is introspective with a broad view of war and its consequences. In comparison, Keith’s tune reduces world politics to America putting boots in people’s asses.

The parody is at FrostyMojo.com where this link will take you. The song not only discusses with pride how a man lied about his age to serve his country in WWII but - in a statement borrowed from the website - it “suggests that their [sic] are downsides to solving your problems by ‘putting boots in asses.’ ”)

2003-04-17T13:36:00.000-04:00

WWJC? (Who Would Jesus Crucify?)

Do you think Jesus supported capital punishment? You know Jesus - the guy on the cross. Do you think he supported executing criminals?

People can’t put words in God’s mouth, although some try to do it. And the ones that claim to read God’s mind the most tend to support capital punishment. It seems contradictory, but it happens. Maybe the rest of us missed a footnote or clause to the Thou Shall Not Kill statement.

Anyhow, it must be a big day coming here for them - Good Friday. It marks the day when somebody who was declared a criminal by the laws of an officially recognized state was put to death for his crimes. Now that’s justice.

Check out this link at The Tucson Citizen for a view about Jesus and capital punishment. The picture basically explains the whole point. There is a story for details if you want some more information. Thanks to Craig at The Meatstack for showing me the picture.

2003-04-17T13:34:00.000-04:00

Support does not mean blind acceptance

Go ahead, tie yellow ribbons on fence posts. Put American flags in your yard. But only do those things if the actions come naturally to you. People are still true Americans even if they do not figuratively genuflect to symbols.

True patriotism is something in a person’s heart ... not in his symbolic actions. Oftentimes, individuals who make an obvious effort to make sure people see them paying reverence to symbols tend to have some of the weakest commitment. They compensate by wearing red, white and blue shirts so people say, “Oh, you look so patriotic today.”

Color schemes have nothing to do with true patriotism.

Wearing a shirt certainly does not mean a person supports American troops or loves his country more than somebody who does not. It is obviously important to support our troops. If you want to do so, send them a care package through Operation Shoebox. Your neighbors won’t see you waving a flag, but you will actually help a soldier even if it is to just brighten his day for a few minutes when he knows somebody is thinking about him by sending a small token of appreciation.

It is even more important to support our troops - even in little ways - now that there are rumblings about war possibly spreading past Iraq. And the best way to support them is to oppose further power-based military actions implemented by politicians. People like those take advantage of the true sense of patriotism and pride in 19-year-old soldiers who want to serve their country.

Don’t reduce your support of troops to just blindly backing any policy that sends them into battle. And don’t label people as unpatriotic who disagree with the war. The United States has participated in 50 armed conflicts since the Revolutionary War, as listed at The History Guy. The list includes obscure battles almost lost to history, one-day raids and history-changing wars.

Does somebody have to agree that all 50 conflicts were unquestionably right to be patriotic?

What about when United States troops attacked after a group of 300 slaves and 20 Indians occupied Fort Blount at Apalachicola Bay, Florida in 1816, which was just listed under the broad category of ‘U.S. Slave Rebellions 1800-1865’ as opposed to being listed as a battle unto itself at THG? Did that make slavery right because United States military troops went into battle and won?

Is there room for ranking the conflicts in terms of righteousness or is a conflict automatically justified just because some American politicians send other people’s children into combat. The mass murder of American Indians was obviously not justified just because United States soldiers were used to carry out the actions.

But America won its military conflicts with the natives. So, the United States got to write the history books, which is the case with war, just like it is in Iraq. That is a flawed way to interpret history and the justification of military action. If the American colonists lost the Revolutionary War, then would their causes and beliefs have been proven wrong? Of course not. The United States might now have Benedict Arnold Day instead of Presidents’ Day, though.

Neither would the United States Constitution suddenly have become a terrible document if the British reclaimed the colonies in the War of 1812. But it might have been basically erased from history after just a few decades of existence because the kings of England certainly would have done everything possible to eliminate its memory.

Might does not make right. It just means one group has a better military than the other one does.

So, support American troops by telling politicians you don’t feel the need for them to prove their might again for tainted motives. Support our troops by saying you would rather see them out of harm’s way than fighting in a desert for somebody else’s lies, as opposed to the war in Afghanistan, which was a completely justifiable military action. Support our troops by saying you would rather see them tuck in their children at night as opposed to watching them march into Syria or Iran or some other country.

And tie a yellow ribbon around a fence post.

But only if it comes naturally.

2003-04-16T12:53:00.000-04:00

Who is the new No. 1

The Axis of Evil Rankings System is in jeopardy.

Iraq, the top seed in the AOERS, fell to the United States military in just three weeks. Now, more than just needing a new number one opponent, President Bush needs a nation to wage war against that could provide enough of a fight to return any credibility to the system that provided such a weak regime to fight in its first attempt.

The way the United States military eliminated the supposed top program in the Axis of Evil with almost too much ease and Iraq’s absence created two questions in this Bowl Championship Series-like system. One - Is the system flawed and in need of an update if Iraq is the best opponent it could produce for the United States? Two - What country should join the Axis of Evil, which now only includes Iran and North Korea, with Iraq’s elimination?

Some sources close to those running the system insist the rankings work just fine in determining war opponents for the United States, which has held the world’s unquestioned top military spot ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Those individuals point to how America usually only faced ridiculously easy opponents during the last 25 years. Wars in Grenada, Panama and the Balkans hardly provided the type of action people like to watch on television. Something was missing from those fights. Even though Iraq might not have been the toughest possible opponent, people who still support the Axis of Evil rankings point to the fact the nation provided a better fight than those other countries.

Still, other people acknowledge the scathing comments heaped upon the Axis of Evil Ranking Committee due to the lopsided international championship war it produced. Secretly, they are also admitting the hype surrounding Iraq’s previous war efforts under Saddam Hussein was exaggerated in determining his threat after he finished 0-1-1 or 1-1-0 in his previous two wars, depending on the point of view. He clearly took a beating in Gulf War I. Technically, Iraq defeated Iran in an eight-year war during the 1980s, but gained actually little from the conflict. That interpretation created the difference between the win and the tie scenarios.

“Look at that war,” said an unnamed senior source close to the AOE Ranking Committee. “We bitch-slapped Iraq in three weeks. We have to do better or we should just stop the whole system. People want a system they trust to put together the best fight possible. Some people want China. I think they are the toughest. I don’t think there is a question about that. Some people don’t think they are evil enough, though.”

The guidelines for determining evil status have been criticized basically from the moment President Bush first uttered the “Axis of Evil” phrase. Even though China seems like the most threatening country to the world due to its militaristic nature, aggression against Tibetan culture, incidents like the Tiananmen Square Massacre, human rights violations and nuclear stockpiles, it barely registers when people discuss potential American enemies.

It is unlikely that nation will crack the top three when the next official Axis of Evil rankings are released. The brutal dictatorship could make the list, but it could hurt the system’s credibility, since people know the United States would not go to war with them.

China would just amount to a lip-service top-three threat because it fails in one key category, which weighs heavily in determining not necessarily which countries make the list, but which ones get enough attention for President Bush to attack. That is the financial category. “What saves China is that its oppressive government has a financial link to the United States,” said the unnamed source. “China is probably the most oppressive and militarily threatening country in the world. But the Chinese trade their plastic odds and ends and computers with America. There’s just not a lot of financial benefit in America attacking China. We get what we want from them and just give an occasional passing word to them about human rights violations. The same goes with Saudi Arabia. Viscous thugs run that country, but they are smart enough to trade their main product with the West. We just couldn’t get the Iraqi oil any other way. That weighed heavily in the decision.”

There was also the 9-11 factor.

“You know, they [the Iraqi leaders] were mostly Muslim, too, just like the terrorists on September 11,” explained the source. “That helped us right off the bat. Even though there was no connection between Iraq and September 11 enough people just saw some guys with funny-sounding names who looked enough like the terrorists to justify killing them. We ran with that fear. No doubt. That’s a tough sell with China. No matter how many forged documents we would present to the United Nations, it would be tougher to sell the idea that Asians had something to do with September 11. People not might know much about who perpetrated that attack - hell, none of them were even Iraqis, but we managed to make a vague enough connection for people - but they know they weren’t Asians. I think.”

That mindset leads many to believe Iran will inherit the number one spot, as opposed to North Korea, which lacks the necessary cultural stereotypes and population appearance for people to link the nation with terrorists even though the country is far more dangerous to the world than any Middle East nation. Statements like those suggest the rankings are not based on a black-and-white formula, but rather that interpretation and judgment calls enter the picture. “You are correct in saying that,” added the source, “but I can’t say anything past that. It’s a secretive selection process. Everything is secretive. A Skull and Bones man is running the show, so what do you expect?”

So, where does the AOE brain trust go from here? It needs a third country to accompany Iran and North Korea or it would not have a real axis kind of feel to it. However, the choices are slim at best. Most sources point to Syria making the move into the top three. “God help us if it comes to that,” added the source, while shaking his head.

His sentiments are understandable.

Most Americans know nothing about Syria. How can you get a group of people to fear a nation when they cannot even name the leader, spell the name of its capital or find it on a map? It indeed would be a tough sale. However, as the Bush administration showed with Iraq, it is not above misleading people in order to pump up an almost nonexistent threat in order to justify its actions.

“It would be a monumental sale, trying to convince people to fear Syria,” admitted the source. “It would be like that movie by that guy Michael Moore with John Candy where they showed how governments can manufacture enemies to suit their needs. What was that called? Umm, ummm, ‘Canadian Bacon.’ That’s it. ‘Syrian Bacon’ just sounds dumb, though.”

(Writer’s note: This story is a parody. That should be self-explanatory. There is no Axis of Evil Ranking Committee in the sense of there being a BCS Ranking Committee. Therefore, there is no source close to the nonexistent committee. It’s just a spoof. Do not go around telling people, “Hey, I read a story about the Axis of Evil Ranking Committee,” like it is for real. It’s just a joke.)

Special thanks to Craig at The Meatstack. He made a comment about Syria's Axis of Evil Rankings. That sort of got me going on writing this story. Thanks again.

2003-04-16T01:57:00.000-04:00

Human rights for some

Cubans are probably asking, “Why not us?”

Many people in Iran, North Korea, China, numerous African nations, Belarus, Syria, Libya, Saudi Arabia and other countries might have wondered the same thing over the last year. Hundreds of millions of people living in those countries have probably not seen images of Iraqis celebrating in the streets of Baghdad and northern Iraqi towns during the last few days.

However, they have probably heard enough reports - even in highly-censored environments - to know the United States used human rights violations as one of its justifications for its invasion of Iraq. And they probably have to wonder what made the Bush administration consider the lives of Iraqis more important than their own.

Why did the ‘disappearances’ of their loved ones matter less? Why did the rape of their women matter less? Why did the forced military service of their young men - at the barrel of a gun - matter less? Why did the beating and imprisonment of their dissenters matter less?

The answer is that they did not matter less. Those issues did not really matter in Iraq either to the people who wanted the war. Freeing oppressed human beings was a convenient way for the administration to verbally pat itself on the back and wrap its ulterior financial motives in a self-righteous cloak. Americans - both Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, rich and working class - are willing to turn a blind eye toward human rights violations when it is easy.

And it almost always is easy to do so.

Probably just about every American owns something with the words “Made in China” on it without giving much thought to the torture and human rights violations that went into making it for a cheap price. The torture rooms displayed the last few days in Iraq were indeed sobering. But it’s a safe bet the ones in China and Saudi Arabia do not look like five-star hotels. The military and police in those nations strap their neighbors to walls and beat them just the same as Saddam Hussein’s henchmen.

Chinese and Saudi Arabian blood stains white walls just the same as Iraqi blood.

The general idea seems to be that a country can torture and kill its civilians and not suffer retribution as long as it is a financial ally of America. China and Saudi Arabia are examples of that. But God forbid a dictator torture and kill his citizens and not pay lip service to the United States, while controlling a large supply of the world’s most important commodity. Then there is a problem. Iraq is an example of that.

That is what is nauseating about hearing people, who seldom even consider human rights, congratulate themselves for their sudden concern about helping abused people. In contrast, if the same person now celebrating in Baghdad moved to their neighborhood, they would likely have no use for him except to make towel head and 7-11 worker jokes. These newfound human rights supporters also like to point out a supposed hypocrisy in liberals who they state should support the war if they truly believe in human rights.

Generally ignoring worldwide human rights violations and then saying “look what good we did for these people” just because freeing them was a side effect of a policy of greed and power is the hypocrisy. Even among the people now feeling the glow of false self-righteousness, not too many Americans seem upset that Cuba recently arrested almost 100 of the country’s most well known dissidents and subjected them to show trials where sentences of over 15 years were common. The number would have been higher, but most prominent opposition voices are already in jail.

Cuban dictator Fidel Castro forcibly silenced voices, knowing full well the world’s attention was turned toward Iraq, just like governments did in Belarus and Zimbabwe. The war provided a perfect shadow for them, which is something all oppressors need to operate.

Most Americans probably did not even hear about any of their atrocities, while somehow believing Iraq was the only nation where such violations occur.

So, is the next option a war with Cuba?

Of course not.

Obviously, America cannot free all oppressed people. It’s just not a realistic option. We would have to send our military into dozens of countries, which would basically amount to the American Empire and create horrible resentment and consequences. Unfortunately, sometimes containment is the only option. It’s horrible for the people living under oppression. But it’s reality.

With all of that being stated, it indeed was heartwarming to see the Iraqis celebrating in the streets. The release of their fear and anger is something nobody who lives in a free society can truly understand. All most Americans could do was watch and smile as they were finally allowed to express themselves by dragging the decapitated head of a Hussein statue through the streets.

But that also begged the question: Wouldn’t an image of Castro’s head skipping off a street look just as good to Cubans?

Why don’t they deserve that feeling just the same?

2003-04-16T01:51:00.000-04:00

Well said

You know the world is going crazy when the best rapper in the world is a white guy, the best golfer in the world is a black guy, France is accusing the US of arrogance and Germany doesn't want to go to war. - Dan The Man’s instant message auto reply statement

2003-04-15T22:51:00.000-04:00

Forms or soldiers ... take your pick

1040 forms beat horseback-riding soldiers sweeping into villages.

Sure, filling out government tax forms is a pain at times and can get unnecessarily complicated. Any business owner or freelance worker can go into detail about the subject.

However, the busy work sure beats the old-fashioned military way of collecting taxes where governments sent soldiers into towns to grab goods from the citizens. They would then maybe burn some stuff and rape a few women for good measure just to put fear into the people. Kind of makes having to itemize deductions not seem too bad, eh?

So, while nobody looks forward to opening the checkbook before April 15, it’s something we all have to do. Governments need money. That’s just reality. While nobody likes to pay taxes, despite how some conservatives think they are the only people who object to the practice, we have to fund projects. Believe it or not, liberals work until the first week of May before they technically earn a single dollar for themselves just like conservatives. They also think there is a lot of wasteful spending.

People on the left also don’t like seeing the big gap between gross and net pay on their checks, although it is foolish to complain about working so hard and saying the government takes money without a person ever touching it. The statement is true, but only a fool would base his spending patterns around his gross pay.

It’s not like the amount removed each week is a surprise. Bosses understand the tax structure and adjust their financial compensation levels accordingly. Any worker, small business owner or multi-millionaire with any intelligence must adjust his or her financial approach in the same way.

That does not mean the current tax system is the only alternative or that all the money given to governments is always used in the best way possible. Obviously, mass improvements could occur. There is also a lot of waste. However, any change for just change sake would not necessarily make matters better.

The idea of no taxes and the privatization of matters now handled by governments sounds great. Those theories sound even better when trying to fill out forms in time to get them finished in the hours before deadline. Or when the IRS sends an audit notice. A strong case can be made for privatization of many current government services. The private sector would probably handle a lot of programs better than the government. Plus, the more money people give any organization and the more they let the group perform duties for them, the more personal power they lose.

But immediately ending the current tax situation - in a Libertarian Party dream scenario - would call for massive restructuring of American society even though the group’s plan does hold the benefit of most resembling the founding fathers’ vision of taxation when compared to any other modern party’s platform. There definitely is a strong point to be made that people know what is best for themselves and can handle their money better than anyone else.

Some people also argue income taxes are illegal because they are not mentioned in the original United States Constitution. Strict constructionist arguments like that are valid. Just one question, though. How many people who object to paying taxes based on those standards would be willing to walk into inner-city Los Angeles and tell a couple black people they only count as 3/5 of a human being apiece because that was how the Constitution labeled people of that race?

In fact, the Constitution writers addressed both their original taxation plan and the fractional counting of a race in the same sentence found in Article I, Section 2. It stated: Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
Nobody can have it both ways. If taxes are illegal, then a black man only counts as 3/5 of a human being. If you can pass laws to change the Constitution regarding race counting, then you can change it for other reasons, too.

In another matter, some people think if all taxes were eliminated they would suddenly have more money than they know how to spend. That’s partially an illusion - and it has nothing to do with how people tend to live on the money they have anyhow, which seems to often hold true. If somebody just gets by on $20,000 and then gets a better job paying $30,000, many individuals in that situation still tend to just get by because they adjust their limits and spending patterns.

But back to taxes themselves.

Let’s imagine the Libertarian ideal situation with no income taxes.

What is now a person’s gross pay becomes their new overall pay ... period. Woooo-hooooo, look at all the money people would keep by not paying federal, state or local taxes. There is a catch in that scenario, though. There would be no programs. People would have to set aside more money for old age because there would not be government benefits. College would cost more because the student grant program would be gone. Etc. Etc. Etc.

That statement is not meant to support or attack either approach. It’s just meant to show the likelihood of what would have to happen.

Like stated earlier, there are a lot of plusses to having people control their own money in situations like paying for college. It’s the best way to go if possible. But there would not be the mass influx of disposable income that people think they would get by eliminating taxation. Enough items like paying for college would be so much of a push that they would negate much of the newfound money.

Plus, everything would cost more.

America would still need roads, the world’s best military, political officials, government buildings, policemen, firemen and other important things. Who really wants their local police department to become a for-profit business? Who wants to run the risk of having the local firehouse go out of business like it was a bakery or hardware store?

Several things might have to happen in order to address those issues. The government might have to increase tariffs on imported goods in order to get cash to fund the military for example. Every widget on a person’s desk would increase in price. Even the domestically-made ones would cost more when the foreign ones would jump in price. That would allow domestic widget manufacturers to increase prices and not suffer.

Sales taxes would also increase.

Governments would also have to pay private contractors to build roads and take care of other infrastructure projects like those, so they would need money for that. The alternative to bidding out road contacts in such a fashion would be to have road construction companies run them as private enterprises. But how many people would want to pay a toll every time they drove on a road built by a different company than the previous road?

Imagine having to pay a toll when you pass through every little borough on way to the mall. Imagine the traffic congestion at dozens of tollbooths across your county. Drivers would start to plan their routes around avoiding as many tollbooths as possible.

Other programs could possibly just fade away if not for taxes in light of the current setup. Many inner city schools would just collapse even quicker than they are doing now. That’s a tough sale to make to some people, who figure they pay taxes to their school districts, so others should just do the same. That’s a nice theory, but the tax bases in some poor inner cities just cannot support good schools right now.

It’s still tough to convince some people why they should support schools in such fashion. The gripe is expressed because the reason is not obvious at times. Even if people object to paying taxes, they can at least see the immediate results of paying state taxes and then having their roads repaired.

The benefit of funding schools on the other side of a state is not as immediate. It’s more abstract and takes a lifetime to show the benefits. Education leads to better self-esteem, better jobs and the reduced likelihood somebody will turn to crime. In short, the more a person learns the less likely he is to grow up and stick a knife in somebody’s ribs to steal his wallet.

Call it an unfair redistribution of wealth if you want. But reducing the risk of getting killed for $50 in the future seems worth it. Lack of education is the root of many American problems.

With all that being stated, there are obviously better ways to handle many aspects of America’s current economic situation. A lot of options would be worth exploring and possibly implementing. But they would require massive shifts in just about every facet of American life. Cutting revenue while keeping expenses the same is a foolish approach. It leads to massive debt. Success can only come if taxes are reduced at the same time spending is reduced. That’s a simple idea anybody with a job and checking account should understand.

2003-04-15T15:40:00.000-04:00

The people who are right ... and then the rest of them

Jerry Falwell doesn’t just think he is right.

He thinks he is absolutely right in a universe where there is only right and wrong to every question.

Falwell, a well-known conservative television preacher, even went so far as to once again reiterate his universal righteousness in an e-mail sent to his supporters as shown here at this Buzzflash link. In it, Falwell discussed liberals by stating: In their typically valueless world of ever-changing morals and situational ethics, there is no right or wrong, no cause for advancing truth because no truth can actually exist. In such a world, we don't even know what "is" is.

First of all, let’s give Falwell some credit with the “is is" statement. It’s a good one-liner. The meaning of “is” is a topic of conversation for a philosophy class. In a courtroom, however, it was an attempt at some legal maneuvering, no matter what a person thought of President Clinton’s legal battles.

As for the rest of his sentiments, they are meaningless.

They’re meaningless for one important reason. And it has nothing to do with anything political, religious or philosophical. They are meaningless because of how people like Falwell use them.

Many individuals are more than willing to draw universal and unquestionable codes of right and wrong in their lives and assume people should be condemned if they fall on the wrong side of the line. The problem is people who do so do not put themselves on the wrong side. Ever. Think about it, when was the last time you ever heard somebody say, “There are absolute wrongs and rights, and I am on the wrong side,” when discussing anything?

Nobody says that.

Sure, people get teary-eyed when they get caught and then tell everybody how their mistake only proves how much God loves them because he (or she?) forgives them. Individuals are willing to admit to occasional transgressions like that. But how many people who say there are only right and wrong ever say they fall on the wrong side even by a 51 percent to 49 percent margin?

Then again, there is probably no room for just barely universally right or wrong. It's 100 percent or nothing.

Either way, the answer is none.

That’s because too many people just use the universal right-or-wrong codes in order to apply some sort of moral superiority to their own opinions, while also creating an easy way to dismiss people with differing opinions. After all, why should they consider them since they already know them as universally wrong?

Dismissing people with differing points of view serves no purpose in finding the truth. It takes a person of conviction to hold a belief, challenge it by comparing it to other philosophies, and then still hold the same belief after thoughtful examination. In most cases, it takes no conviction go say, "I'm right, you're wrong. You're going to hell. Na, na, na, na, na, na," especially when a group is the majority in any collection - like Christians in America.

People loose credibility when creating their own universal right and wrong codes, based on whatever theory, if they are not willing - even once - to admit they are on the wrong side of a major philosophical debate or petty argument at the kitchen table.

2003-04-14T13:26:00.000-04:00

What is the real plan?

I’m not big on just writing a few paragraphs and then passing on a link to another story. That kind of defeats the purpose of running my own site. I like to write. It’s my job.

But this story is good.

The article examines dangerous Middle East scenarios potentially caused by the Bush administration’s policies and obsession with secrecy to the point of creating a basically uninformed population. The article is entitled Practice to Deceive: Chaos in the Middle East is not the Bush hawks' nightmare scenario--it's their plan. It was written by Joshua Micah Marshall for Washington Monthly (April 2003).

It’s a long article, but definitely worth reading. Thanks to Mike at Gorilla-a-Gogo for sending this to me.

Here is a part of it, you can read the rest by clicking this link:

To begin with, this whole endeavor is supposed to be about reducing the long-term threat of terrorism, particularly terrorism that employs weapons of mass destruction. But, to date, every time a Western or non-Muslim country has put troops into Arab lands to stamp out violence and terror, it has awakened entire new terrorist organizations and a generation of recruits. Placing U.S. troops in Riyadh after the Gulf War (to protect Saudi Arabia and its oilfields from Saddam) gave Osama bin Laden a cause around which he built al Qaeda. Israel took the West Bank in a war of self-defense, but once there its occupation helped give rise to Hamas. Israel's incursion into southern Lebanon (justified at the time, but transformed into a permanent occupation) led to the rise of Hezbollah. Why do we imagine that our invasion and occupation of Iraq, or whatever countries come next, will turn out any differently?

2003-04-14T13:22:00.000-04:00

Hockey time

Time for more self-promotion. This link is to a story I wrote for USAHockey.com. It’s a game story about the 2003 Junior C National Championships played in Indiana, Pennsylvania last weekend.

The Ramapo Rangers won the championship with an 8-0 victory over the Saint Clair Shores Saints.

Go read it. Now. I’m serious. Get going.

2003-04-14T01:56:00.000-04:00

Homer and Hussein

Hopefully, Saddam Hussein is on the ground and spinning in a circle, while saying, "wooooo, woooooo, woooooo, woooooo, wooooo," when he is found.

Why you ask?

It would provide a fitting symbolic Simpsons comparison - that’s why. And as we all know, there is a Simpsons scene to reference in just about any situation whatsoever.

In case you don't know the scene, Homer performed the little spinning move after a meeting with his boss Montgomery Burns. Homer became the leader of the nuclear power plant's union. Through no intelligent or planned action of his own, Homer won back the workers' dental plan.

The only condition Burns made was that Homer had to resign as president of the union, which was something he wanted to do anyhow. Upon hearing the news, Homer dropped to the floor and spun around in celebration.

Here is the symbolic point. At that moment, Burns looked to his assistant and said, "Smithers, I'm beginning to think that Homer Simpson was not the brilliant tactician I thought he was."

Now, all kidding aside, that statement applies pretty accurately to Hussein.

People who wanted the war with Iraq painted Hussein as a modern-day Adolph Hitler. He was described as a danger to his country, the surrounding nations and the entire world. However, his regime collapsed after just three weeks of war, he did not use weapons of mass destruction even as he lost control of his nation, and one of his few tactics in defense of Baghdad was to set oil fires.

That does not exactly sound like a threat to all of mankind.

That sounds like a two-bit thug who happened to become the leader of a nation.

Basically, Hussein was a beaten dog held in check since he lost the first Gulf War. Ironically, as war supporters rejoice in the victory, there seems to be almost no discussion about how the ease in which he was defeated seems to suggest Hussein was not the threat to the world he was made out to be.

You think some people just tried to create that image for ulterior motives? Huh? You think? Maybe?

2003-04-11T13:44:00.000-04:00

Wait and see

War supporters are loving their we-told-you-so moment.

Good for them. It’s a case of modern-day immediate gratification, shortsightedness, ego, self-righteousness and the belief that might makes right.

The war was quick and decisive, giving them immediate cause to thump their chests and show video of some people who opposed to the war and said it would be a long quagmire and the people of Iraq would reject American soldiers, as if a few liberals saying something automatically means they represent every single person left of center. Just watch Joe Scarborough on MSNBC and you will hear this story repeatedly.

It indeed did happen.

Of course, we here at PhugIt never suggested the war would be any type of Vietnam. You can check the record. Personally, the worst-case-scenario I predicted in terms of the battle itself was that if there was intense street fighting in Baghdad then American fatalities could finish higher than during the first Gulf War. Thankfully that did not happen, although there is still some scattered fighting.

Our technological and training advantages made the outcome almost a given.

The thing is that people who opposed the war will need years to show what were some of their main objections to the conflict. From January to November 2002, Iraq ranked seventh on the list of nations from where America received its oil imports by accounting for 2.3 percent of the oil products that came into the country, according to this link provided by the American Petroleum Institute and statistics from the Department of Energy. By the end of President Bush’s second term, if he unfortunately gets one, Iraq will be in the top five on that list and account for at least 12 percent, if not more, of America’s oil imports. The numbers will probably be higher, but those are conservative guesses.

That percentage might not sound like much, but America’s leading supplier of oil - Canada - accounted for 16.9 percent during the same time to provide a perspective. And there was a significant drop after the first four of Canada, Saudi Arabia (13.4 percent), Mexico (13.3 percent) and Venezuela (12.6 percent). Then came Nigeria in fifth with 5.2 percent.

Whatever oil America gets from Iraq will basically amount to the same as getting it from Texas. We will carry significant power over how it is used due to the Iraqi debt to us.

That’s not a fact. It’s an opinion.

It a pretty safe opinion, though. Of course, the United States will not set up its own government and fly American flags over the oil wells. We will be much subtler than that, leaving just enough troops behind so everybody knows who is really in control. However, we will now have access to one of the world’s largest supplies of oil. The main buffer will be a puppet-type government elected with the backing of America with the knowledge that they owe their complete existence and freedom to the United States.

Not a bad deal, eh?

And those who supported the war will take the oil in a self-congratulatory way by explaining how it is only being done to help the Iraqis.

That probably will not be the only side effect. If there is ever another terrorist attack on the scale of September 11 - God forbid - this time there will likely be Iraqi names attached unlike the horror created by al-Qaeda on that day. Most Iraqis likely view Americans as liberators. But enough view us as invaders, as highlighted by how there were not mass surrenders like during the first Gulf War, that there will be resentment. And some of them will want to act on that resentment.

But neither of these scenarios provide an immediate kind of we-told-you-so moment. Actually, if they do happen it will be years from now. By then, war supporters will blame the repercussions on some obscure legislation supported by liberals. They will probably even blame President Clinton again and not understand why people mention the war at all.

That’s okay.

When and if these things happen, just remember the line from Tao Te Ching: “Because he believes in himself, he doesn’t try to convince others.” Because there will be no convincing them.

In case you want to keep track, here is a link to the API’s page about oil imports. Check it over the next few years and watch Iraq climb the polls.

2003-04-11T13:34:00.000-04:00

Blood diamonds

Diamonds fell from the sky when the twin towers collapsed. There was also a lot of unknown blood slipped onto every woman’s finger when she got her engagement ring.

Hopefully, events like those will not happen again.

The United States House of Representatives and Senate both recently passed the Clean Diamonds Trade Act. The House did so on April 9, just one week after a similar bill worked through the Senate. The legislation, which received support from Amnesty International, the Campaign to Eliminate Conflict Diamonds, and the Jewelers of America, was designed to stop conflict diamonds from entering the United States by using the new Kimberley Process Certification Scheme.

Conflict diamonds are sold by rogue groups in order to fund war, human rights violations and terrorist attacks. Funds from the blood diamonds have been used to cause a lot of pain and horror in countries like Sierra Leone. Al-Qaeda, the organization responsible for the 9-11 terrorist attacks, also trafficked in conflict diamonds.

The legislation appeared to come about due to real bipartisan work, as opposed to when groups just hope to get a handful of people from the other side of the aisle to agree and pay lip service to working with other people. According to a link at Amnesty International, “The legislation, which comprises two companion bills --S. 760 and H.R. 1415-- was introduced in the Senate by Senators Charles Grassley (R-IA), Max Baucus (D-MT) and Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) and in the House by Representatives Amo Houghton (R-NY), William Thomas (R-CA) and Charles Rangel (D-NY).”

Here is a copy of an Amnesty International e-mail.

Good News! Senate, House OK Clean Diamond Trade Act

On April 9, 2003, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Clean Diamonds Trade Act to prohibit the import of conflict diamonds into the U.S. The U.S. Senate passed a similar measure on April 2, 2003. The passage of the Clean Diamond Trade Act is the result of a multi-year effort by thousands of Amnesty International activists, our colleagues in the Campaign to Eliminate Conflict Diamonds, the Jewelers of America, and the committed leadership of our friends in the House and Senate.

The Clean Diamond Trade Act will put in place an international system known as the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme, which will ensure that diamonds entering the United States are legally mined and traded. The certification will be instrumental in ensuring that "conflict diamonds" -- gems that have fueled decades-long wars and atrocities in Africa and have reportedly financed al-Qaeda - are not imported into the U.S.

Many thanks for your support.

2003-04-11T03:23:00.000-04:00

Take liberals out of the ballgame, take liberals out of the crowd

Hugh Conrad was the king of Buzzflash.

On April 10 in the year of our Lord 2003, Hugh published a story at Buzzflash.com - one of the top liberal political websites. Not only did he do that, but the story ran as the banner headline article for a few hours. It was quite an accomplishment, considering the vast array of articles available on the web and reader submissions received by the site.

Hugh, a fellow sports writer from the Johnstown, PA area, called for readers to "Bombard the Baseball Hall of Fame" with letters and e-mails. He called for the action in response to a stance taken by Major League Baseball Hall of Fame President Dale Petroskey, a member of the Reagan administration, who cancelled a scheduled 15th anniversary Bull Durham celebration because two of the film's stars, Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon, spoke out against the war with Iraq.

He went as far as to state, their comments, “ultimately could put our troops in even more danger,” according to this Associated Press article. Petroskey is certainly entitled to his opinion about the war. So are Robbins and Sarandon.

So is Hugh. And he did a fine job of expressing it.

Go check out the story. You can find a link where to e-mail the Hall of Fame in his article. Here is my letter.

Mr. Dale Petroskey,

I'm a proud American, liberal and baseball fan.

Those things already combined on April 9. That night I went to a Pirates game with a friend. We spent part of the time discussing the war that we both oppose. And guess what? You couldn't tell the difference between us and anybody at PNC Park who supported the war.

We were all just there to watch baseball - the greatest game in the world.

I see no contradiction in being a liberal baseball fan. Apparently, you do. Your recent act of stopping a scheduled Bull Durham tribute was insulting and foolish. I couldn't care less if the Hall of Fame held a tribute to the movie. I did not even know it was scheduled until I heard it was cancelled. But to cancel it because you feel anti-war comments made by Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon threatened America makes you look weak.

You indeed have an impressive resume and I do not know you as a person, but in my experience, usually men of weak convictions are the ones who cannot stand criticism of their own viewpoints. Your little hissy fit is beneath baseball and the Hall of Fame.

One of my fondest childhood memories was a trip to Cooperstown with my dad and cousins. I have also returned since then. It is indeed a special place for baseball lovers to cast aside all other differences and celebrate their unity in love of the sport.

I plan to return again in my lifetime. Hopefully, more than once.

I just have one question, though. Since I opposed the war with Iraq will I be allowed to enter the door?

2003-04-11T00:05:00.000-04:00

The dancing focus group

Enjoy your new freedom Iraqis.

There is a lot of hard work ahead. A lot of good things too. It’s a whole new world. We wish you the best. The feeling you now have from your first days of freedom in decades is something nobody who was born into freedom can truly appreciate. It’s taken too much for granted here.

It must be an amazing feeling.

Even people who did not support the war can still join you in your excitement.

There still are questions, though. And the ends certainly do not justify the means in this case. Unfortunately, the current freedom of Iraqis was just a convenient cover used by people who wanted to initiate this war for personal agendas.

If it was strictly based on humanitarian issues, then why are citizens in China, Cuba, North Korea, Belarus, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Zimbabwe, Libya and numerous other countries not given equal chances to dance in the streets? Do Iraqi lives matter more than lives in those countries? Do those citizens love their oppressive governments?

Americans now see the Iraqi torture chambers on television. But the ones in those other nations still exist in shadows far away from the cameras of cable news networks.

The Iraqi chambers are now closed. So at least some good did come from the war agenda.

One thing is curious, though. How come the images of thousands of Iraqis dancing in the streets are used as justification for the war and self-congratulatory back patting by the same Bush administration that dismissed millions of marching war protesters as nothing but a focus group?

2003-04-07T23:50:00.000-04:00

Apparently, they really did mean “Girls Gone Wild”

Why did it have to involve sexual acts with minors?

Why? Why? Why?

The individuals responsible for doing God’s work by making the "Girls Gone Wild" videos, which basically amounted to hours of drunken college girls flashing their breasts, could have been arrested for dozens of reasons without much concern. They put so much good into the world, but now their spiritual work might become blackened by illegal activities.

Some crimes could have been understandable - public drunkenness, renting the services of a woman of legal age, or simple pot possession. Allegedly committing any of those crimes would have been defensible in a Libertarian way. They would not have harmed anybody by committing them. Hell, committing them would have added to their image.

But they allegedly committed one of the few illegal activities we won’t defend here at PhugIt, although the individuals are definitely innocent until proven guilty. There were some drug and racketeering charges. But the indefensible act was that they were arrested for allegedly paying girls under the legal age of 18 to show their goodies and perform adult-based acts - if you know what we mean - for $100 in a Florida motel room.

The girls were 16 and 17.

Authorities also apparently found video documentation of the adults telling the underage girls to lie about their age.

For shame. Aside from even the morally wrong aspect of taking advantage of children in such a vulgar way, another question exists. Why would these individuals run the risk of losing everything in order to have some 17-year-old girls get naked when there were likely more than enough legal-aged, 18-year-old gals who were willing to do exactly the same thing? That’s just stupid.

It’s tough to watch people who have done so much good for the world fall from grace like this. However, there is just no defense for these individuals if the allegations are true.

Here are some stories about the arrests.

Atlanta Journal-Constitution
WPLG Channel 10

2003-04-06T23:55:00.000-04:00

The world must watch

Raul Rivero wrote poems.

That was his crime.

Gibson Sibanda debated political policy.

That was his crime.

A few Belarus citizens marked an anniversary.

That was their crime.

Rivero, Sibanda and those Belarus citizens have likely never met or even know of each other’s existence. Still, they share a common thread. With the world’s attention turned toward Iraq, many leaders have decided to increase their brutality, assuming few people will notice or care.

Unfortunately, they are right.

People like Rivero in Cuba, Sibanda in Zimbabwe and those individuals in Belarus have paid the price, according to this article in the New York Times written by Aryeh Neier, which was used as the source for most information in this entry. Now, they sit in prison cells.

Human rights violations tend to occur below mainstream society’s radar. That is until somebody uses those violations as a convenient excuse to justify their ulterior motives, like in Iraq. Situations like the freeing of Iraqis lead many people to pat themselves on the back and toss out statements like, “If liberals really did care about human rights, they would support this war. They’re hypocrites,” just long enough to stop making convenience store worker jokes about the cousin of some Iraqi citizen who lives in their neighborhood.

Indeed, human rights violations are a travesty.

It would be fantastic if America could truly liberate oppressed people for the right reasons, as opposed to using their plight as convenient cover for other militaristic measures. That’s just not realistic, though. If America used its military might to free all people living under dictators, then we would have to conquer a couple dozen nations and basically start the American Empire.

That’s not an option. Instead, the best available option is to pressure governments, so they know people understand what they have done. Oppression, human rights violations, and torture can only take place in shadows. And that is what regimes in Cuba, Zimbabwe and Belarus need.

They have used the shadows in recent weeks to mask more violence against their own people. Cuban dictator Fidel Castro recently arrested over 80 dissidents, including Rivero - a poet and journalist. Sibanda, the vice president of an opposition party called the Movement for Democratic Change, was also imprisoned by Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe, who wants to rig parliamentary elections so he can amend the Constitution and handpick his own successor.

In Belarus, Europe’s last surviving dictator, President Aleksandr Lukashenko, arrested over 50 individuals who gathered to mark the 85th anniversary of the Belarusian Democratic Republic that quickly vanished. Lukashenko, who opposes war with Iraq, detained other citizens who protested in favor of the war.

Those three nations are not alone, though. Similar situations have also likely occurred in China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, numerous African nations, Vietnam, Iran, Syria, Egypt, Indonesia and dozens of other countries without retribution. They committed such atrocities before the war. Nothing suggests they would change now.

The world obviously cannot wage war in all these nations in order to free people. That’s unfortunate, but it’s also reality. There is a solution or at least a chance for a solution. People like Rivero know at least part of the solution. That’s why he was arrested.

It’s writing.

All cliches about pens and swords aside, it can help.

It’s also easier than ever. Go to Amnesty International and read about people living under brutal regimes. Believe it or not, there are quite a few of them other than Iraq. Get upset about one or a couple of the cases, including ones that make you realize somebody could get arrested in his country for reading this same story. Go to the United Nations to find the listing for the country’s mission and copy an e-mail address. Go to a listing of embassies and do the same thing.

If you can, find a website for the nation and get the address of the highest official.

Then just write. Just put the name of a political prisoner and the words “Amnesty International” in an e-mail if you cannot think of anything else to discuss. They will know what it concerns.

Give it a shot. You probably won’t get a reply or any immediate recognition of how you helped like when you do a favor for a neighbor. The odds are slim that you will find out if the person was released or helped. One letter also will not change the world. Nor will some dictator realize the error of his ways, democratize his nation, surrender to world authorities to face charges of crimes against humanity and mention your letter as a reason for his change of heart during an international interview.

But letters do help.

If one person writes a letter, then maybe some guard thinks twice before throwing his next punch. If a hundred people write, then maybe the prisoner of conscience gets to see a doctor or family member. If a thousand write, then maybe the person gets released. If tens of thousands write, then maybe the next political dissident does not ‘disappear’ from his home in the middle of the night.

Then people like Rivero can get back to their subversive activities. Like writing poems.

2003-04-06T23:50:00.000-04:00

Let’s all get IDs

Thinking of our “antis” in this country, I believe they should have to register as such so the rest of us know who they are after this mission is accomplished. - David W. Lamison in an April 6, 2003 letter to the editor in the Johnstown (Pa.) Tribune-Democrat. (Sorry, no direct link is available to the letter.)

That statement came toward the end of a letter that mainly discussed the recent controversy surrounding broadcasters Peter Arnett and Geraldo Rivera. The letter labeled them as “Benedict” Arnett and Geraldo Reveal-all.

PhugIt agrees with national government identification, he wrote sarcastically. Yes sir, child molesters and war protesters should both be registered just the same. My God, think if one moved into you neighborhood. You might have to sit there and watch him commit such un-American acts like reading messages from Pope John Paul II in which he expressed his opposition to the war. Lousy hippie Pope.

What could go wrong with registering people according to groups and beliefs? This cannot be done by just making people wear some sort of scarlet A to show they were against the war with Iraq. People could remove them too easily.

Rather, the system would work best by placing a tattoo on the bodies of dissenters. The underside of the forearm seems the best place. That way “the rest of us” can just ask people to turn over their arms in order to show the number.

2003-04-05T23:27:00.000-05:00

From Iraq to Slovakia

Somebody must have thought, “Hey, I’ve gone far enough,” long before seeing the Slovak Republic border.

Of course, most Americans have never experienced a mindset based around fleeing a war. So, it’s kind of tough to tell what somebody in that situation thinks.

But going from Iraq to Slovakia seems a bit overboard. A refugee taking the most likely route probably passed through Iraq, Turkey, Georgia, Russia and the Ukraine before reaching Slovakia. Or they might have taken a more southern route through Turkey, Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary.

That’s a lot of traveling either way.

You think they would have stopped once the landscape no longer looked like where they left. Then again, maybe that was the point for the 24 Iraqi refugees that so far have reached the small eastern European nation, as documented in this Slovak Spectator article. Other counties have also seen the trickling-in of refugees. The idea of two dozen Iraqi expatriates stopping in Slovakia would seem downright hysterical, almost like some horrible reality television show, if not for the tragic circumstances.

The nation was likely not their original destination. Any place offering freedom and a better way of life was their destination. People obviously did not leave Iraq with “Slovakia or Bust” signs when bumming rides. If this was a planned trip, though, the individuals might have purchased the worst-ever Europe-on-$15-per-day book ever written, since “Come to Turkey for the Transportation, Stay for the Torture” does not exactly seem like a catchy tourism phrase.

All jokes aside, thankfully these individuals escaped the violence, hatred and death exploding in their homeland. And now that they have found a new temporary home, here are a few tips. The pieces of cloth worn by the old women on their heads are called babushkas. The old women wearing the babushkas are called babas.

And cabbage is a food group by itself.

2003-04-04T15:19:00.000-05:00

They could not take your pride

Man was born into barbarism when killing his fellow man was a normal condition of existence. He became endowed with a conscience. And he has now reached the day when violence toward another human being must become as abhorrent as eating another's flesh. - Martin Luther King, Jr., Why We Can't Wait, 1963. (Quote found at www.mlkonline.com)

Watching people scurry to see the latest image of a smart bomb hitting a building and killing humans, while saying, “Bam, there goes another one,” leads you to believe we have not yet fully reached the ideal vision described by Dr. King, who was killed on April 4, 1968.

Early morning, April 4
Shot rings out in the Memphis sky
Free at last, they took your life
They could not take your pride

-U2

2003-04-04T02:06:00.000-05:00

A comparison

President George W. Bush would make a better fictional character than a real life human being.

Just imagine if Dubya was a character in a movie, television show or book, then his presidency would end in some sort of catharsis where he realized the error of his destructive ways. That ain’t gonna happen. We’re gonna get almost nothing except war and more Bushisms until he leaves the White House.

We can imagine, however, if he was just a character that could be ignored by closing a book or turning off a television. Wouldn't that be nice, since even when compared to some fictional characters, President Bush does not measure up as the best possible president?

And just for the hell of it we can compare how Dubya would rank against some characters - oh, we’ll say Josiah Bartlet (president on the television series West Wing) and Vito Corleone (leader of a Mafia family in the movies Godfather I and Godfather II). So, let’s do it. The following is determined by a precise scientific formula based upon watching the Godfather films probably over 100 times, taping West Wing fairly regularly and attempting to comprehend what happens inside Bush’s mind.

The analysis features a plus / minus margin of a whole lot. Plus, Homer Simpson would win in a landslide, so he was not even included.

VIOLENCE - Advantage Bartlet

Bartlet - Recently initiated the first military action of his term only after hellish introspection about the consequences of his action. Used America’s military strength to help oppressed people for no other reason than to just help them.

Vito - Violence is just a part of business that all involved accept as a reality when they join the Mafia. He always knew the proportional violent response, like when he only agreed to rough up - instead of kill - individuals who beat up an undertaker’s daughter. He also stopped the killing between families when its overall destruction far outweighed any value. Went a little far at times like when he threatened to blow off a bandleader’s head if he didn’t let his godson out of a contract.

Dubya - Tried to justify war in basically a Crazy Dubya’s Every Excuse Must Be Used sales approach. He threw out war justifications hoping one would eventually stick: Saddam Hussein used weapons of mass destruction over a decade ago, he’s a big bully, a couple people from al-Qaeda might be hanging out in Iraq, getting rid of him will start runaway Middle East democracy, eliminating the Iraqi dictator will resolve the Israeli - Palestinian conflict, etc. If Bush keeps reaching like this, he’ll eventually claim war with Iraq will lead to Jesus Christ personally returning to earth in order to support his tax plan.

UPBRINGING - Advantage Vito

Bartlet - He is the product of a New England family with roots that reach back to the early days of America. An ancestor signed the Declaration of Independence. A strained relationship with his deceased father still haunts him.

Vito - Fled to America after an Italian Mafia boss killed his immediate family. Still he survived. He turned a poor childhood into a standard American dream story.

Dubya - Bush was born on third base and acts like he hit a triple to get there.

INTELLIGENCE - Advantage Bartlet

Bartlet - Bartlet is so smart that when he has a crisis of faith, he chews out God in Latin.

Vito - He gained his business knowledge and understanding of people on the street. It took him far.

Dubya - "There's an old saying in Tennessee—I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee—that says, fool me once, shame on—shame on you. Fool me—you can't get fooled again." - George W. Bush - Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002. If a 10-year-old child said that, he would get held back a year in school. Maybe not in Texas.

SECRET NATURE - Advantage Dubya

Bartlet - Seems uneasy at times with the behind-closed-doors nature of military action, including when he had a suspected terrorist supporter assassinated.

Vito - The family patriarch once pulled his son, Sonny, aside and spoke one of the most quoted lines of the movie trilogy. “Never tell anybody outside the family what you’re thinking again.” Many wannabe gangsters - or even just tough-assed Jersey punks - have used that line. Even Bon Jovi quotes it.

Dubya - You don’t get much more secretive than a Yale Skull and Bones man. Seems upset at times if people know anything about what is happening. Truly, one of his most apparent characteristics.

POWER PLAY - Advantage Bartlet

Bartlet - During a debate with a Republican candidate in a scenario that resembled the 2000 presidential election, Bartlet hit his opponent with a series of comments that you just wish then Vice President Al Gore had used against Bush. The best line came when he challenged his opponent’s cliche mantra about state’s rights by asking if the federal government could have back all the money it gave to his home state. Best of all, he won a free and democratic election.

Vito - The scene where Vito sneaks across rooftops, waits in the shadows for a local Mafia boss who put the pinch on him, shoots him when fireworks and music sound outside in order to conceal the bangs, takes back money from him, and pushes him to the floor in disdain is definitely quality drama. It’s not exactly how you want a president to gain power, though.

Dubya - Bush laid the groundwork of his hypocritical policies even before he entered office. With the election hanging in the balance based on what happened in Florida, Bush basically showed all of the GOP’s talk about smaller government and less federal control was just lip-service. His first action was to go to the federal court system in order for the national government to tell a state how it should count the votes of its citizens.

LOYALTY - Advantage Vito

Bartlet - Instills a sense of community through a tough-but-fair approach. Considers ideas equally from anybody with a well-thought-out perspective.

Vito - He never forgot the little guy. In his younger days when a street vendor gave him goods for free, Vito made sure to tell the man that someday he would do a favor for him. He also helped a little old lady who got evicted from her apartment. That’s beautiful.

Dubya - Loyalty to Bush’s war plan appears to be strictly based on finances. Many countries that support the war do so because they know America will win and they want to be able to claim a piece of the pie when it happens. Turkey basically put its loyalties up for auction. That government used the approach that it would feel scared enough by Saddam Hussein if the price was right.

BUSINESS - Advantage Vito

Bartlet - Most of his business experience came through classroom study and scientific theory. But sometimes inventing the pet rock beats all knowledge of stock trends and world markets.

Vito - When Vito was sidelined with gunshot wounds and Sonny started talking about money matters, his sister reminded the substitute head of the family that their father never discussed business at the table. Making money was important, but family mattered more.

Dubya - The president basically used his life mulligan around 40. Until then he was able to party and not take anything too seriously because there was always the family name and fortune there to catch him. Average guys who use that approach to life don’t become presidents, they become forgotten failures. Bush never had to sweat out a paycheck in his life.

So, there you have it. This scientific poll shows both Vito Corleone and Josiah Bartlet not only make better fictional characters than George W. Bush, but they would also make better presidents.

2003-04-02T01:59:00.000-05:00

Who's that?

Two percent of 1,014 adult Americans recently admitted they are idiots.

Technically, that number comes to 20.28. So, maybe it was 20. Maybe 21.

Either way, those people anonymously proclaimed their stupidity in a March 27 sampling by Harris Interactive, as shown in the April 7, 2003 issue of Time on page 40. It wasn't an opinion that made them look foolish. It was a lack of knowledge that did so.

The individuals were asked: "Do you have generally favorable or generally unfavorable impressions of these world leaders?" The list included United States President George W. Bush, British Prime Minister Tony Blair and French President Jacques Chirac.

Both Bush and Blair scored high favorable marks of 67 percent and 72 percent, respectively. Chirac's favorable was at only 12 percent.

None of those opinions showed the idiotic nature of two percent of the individuals. That came when they were asked about Bush. Along with the 30 percent that gave him an unfavorable ranking, two percent answered the question by picking "not familiar."

It wasn't "not sure." He got a score of one percent in that category, although it was not listed in the diagram itself. Instead, the small print explained how the "not sures” were just omitted from some displays.

These people were not undecided. They were grown adults who heard the name of the President of the United States of America and basically said, "Who's that?"

That's horrible. Hopefully, some of them were just joking. Please God, let some of them be joking. The truly mind-boggling part is those individuals are allowed to vote, breed, drive a car, and buy a gun.

2003-04-02T01:57:00.000-05:00

Welcome home soon

Jessica Lynch looks like a kid.

A picture of the 19-year-old woman standing in an Army uniform in front of a United States flag looks more like somebody posing in a costume than a snapshot of a soldier. But the picture was indeed that of a soldier who put herself in harm’s way for her country.

Lynch, a West Virginia resident who wants to be a teacher after her time in the service, was captured as a prisoner of war in Iraq. The soldier with a child’s face fought a battle, spent nine days as a prisoner of a brutal regime and survived.

It’s cause for celebration, thanks and reflection.

But there is also a need to think about the role of women in the military. Because when a teenage girl shows such bravery and character, it kind of makes all of the Chickenhawks look bad who ‘bravely’ squawked their support for this war, but did not serve during their youths for a variety of reasons like butt cysts, college deferments, football scholarships, and other miscellaneous excuses.

Even with her joyous return and the display of guts by the individuals who risked their lives to save her, there is one rather offensive aspect to the rescue. According to a story on the AOL front page, Central Command spokesman Jim Wilkinson said, “America doesn't leave its heroes behind.” He also added: “Never has. Never will.”

There are a lot of VFW posts, veterans, and concerned citizens with black and white flags flying right below their American flags who know that statement is nothing but a self-congratulatory and undeserved pat on the back.

2003-04-01T00:27:00.000-05:00

It could happen

Maybe some proper baseball balance finally signaled its much overdue return.

On March 31, 2003, the Pittsburgh Pirates dampened the grand opening of Great American Ball Park by thumping the hometown Cincinnati Reds 10-1. During the same afternoon, the Montreal Expos whipped the Atlanta Braves’ Greg Maddux, knocking him around for five runs (four earned) and nine hits through seven innings pitched.

Montreal won 10-2 and Maddux suffered his first opening day loss in seven tries.

But the Expos and Red had little to do with the cosmic balance of the matter. It was about the Pirates and Braves. And it was about October 14, 1992 - a date Pirates’ fans still describe by asking, “Where were you when Sid slid?” In this case, Sid is Sid Bream, an Atlanta Brave at the time and former Pirate with mangled knees.

With two outs in the bottom of the ninth, Bream scored from second base when Pirates left fielder Barry Bonds floated a throw up the line, failing to throw out the lumbering Bream at the plate in Atlanta’s Fulton County Stadium. The Braves won 3-2.

That outcome enforced two trends. The Atlanta victory came in the infancy of what is now an 11-season streak of winning division titles, although the Braves were not a divisional frontrunner when a strike stopped the 1994 season. In contrast, the Pirates have not produced a winning season since then.

However, maybe, just maybe, the opening day results signaled the final correction of the cosmic baseball nightmare that started that evening. Perhaps the Braves’ divisional stranglehold will finally end, and the Pirates will finally return to winning ways. At least those possibilities are now 1 / 162 closer to happening.

(Writer’s note: I’ve made a similar prediction about the Braves’ downfall every year since they stopped the Pirates one series short of the World Series in both 1991 and 1992. They were fun lovable losers in the 1980s. Now, they’re just annoying. But predicting the Pirates will do good is something I have not done since 1992.

On another note, PhugIt is picking the Oakland Athletics and Saint Louis Cardinals to meet in the World Series. Of course, I’ve also made that prediction three years in a row.)