Palin Fund deemed unlawful

It's a very good day to be me!

I got some great news from the University I attend (University of Minnesota), the US is still in the World Cup, TCU is still in the College World Series... there's gas in my car!!! And the woman I love to hate had a little bad news. in fact, I think I hate her more than Ann Coulter. At least with Ann there's some intelligence even if its warped with Fascist overtones.

Supporters of Sarah Palin have 90 days to return nearly $400,000 in donations raised by her legal defense trust after an investigator ruled the fund ran afoul of state ethics laws.

Ok, it really wasn't bad and in some ways, I'm not sure shutting the supposed illegal fund down was legal itself. The fund folded and was then relaunched with this to say:

Now, Sarah Palin's enemies have scored a limited victory in their vicious campaign to smear, bankrupt, and force this dedicated public servant and conservative leader out of politics. They have successfully questioned her prior legal defense fund--a fund that mirrored John Kerry's fund and Bill Clinton's fund. So a new fund was necessary to make sure Sarah Palin can continue to speak the truth to Americans.

I find that somewhere in the middle there is some truth. And saying something mirrors something else leaves a lot out there. Mirrors can be cracked, flawed or distorted and not necissarily reflect an identical image. In other words, your metaphor may reveal that the fund is not altogether like what the supporters allude.

I have to wonder what may have been the truth. And everything with Palin makes me wonder. Like how she has the brain capacity to use words in a sentence.

Senator Knotts = Idiot

State Senator Jake Knotts, Republican from South Carolina called the President a Raghead and the Republican candidate for Governor, Nikki Haley, an Indian-American who was raised a Sikh. He was on an Internet political talk show, Pub Politics.

Ed of MSNBC's The Ed Show points out there may be something in the Republican drinking water in South Carolina.



Maybe there is something going on in South Carolina...

Lexington County Senator Knotts has been asked for his resignation by the State's Libertarian Party and later, the Republican Party.

On June 11th, the Lexington County Republican Party Senator Knotts to resign for calling gubernatorial nominee Nikki Haley a “raghead.”

The county party said the comments brought “shame” and “disgrace” to both Knotts and the state in the resolution condemning the state senator’s actions.

Knotts, a key ally of one of Haley’s primary opponents, used the term in a recent interview to describe both President Barack Obama and Haley, who is the child of Sikh immigrants from India.

He later tried to clarify his comments, saying in a statement that he believes Haley “is pretending to be someone she is not, much as Obama did, but I apologize to both for an unintended slur.”

The resolution censuring Knotts does not cite the word he used to describe Haley, saying only that the state senator’s “racial epithets has brought shame and disgrace upon himself, his office and his party.”

The resolution then “condemns the racist statement” before calling on Knotts to “resign his office forthwith.”

In a response, Knotts said he had no intention of resigning,

“This is not a Republican Party, this is a libertarian party,” Knotts said. “This is nothing but politics. I’m not resigning. I could care less.”

He calls himself a Libertarian but I find that a complete load of bullshit.

Plenty of people like to hang their hats on the Libertarian Party for varying reasons. Some of them are just plain ignorant. There is a perception that Libertarians are the last true bastion of macho red-blooded American bigoted values. I won't say there aren't people out there that think that way but there is much more involved and Libertarians tend to be for Civil Liberties for all Americans, not just the ones that look and think like us (ie White Southerners).

Libertarians oppose war, oppose the Fed, the UN and the US Partiot Act. We also don't like corporatism, taxes, bigger government and statist values. So far, only one Republican has been able to maintain his credential as a Libertarian while running and working within the Republican Party. Representative Ron Paul of Texas is that man. None others come close.

It's convenient for people like Knotts and even Ann Coulter to claim Libertarianism. Conservative views have a voice within the Libertarian fold. We like our guns and our property.

We also hold Liberal social values. Many Libertarians are also for gay marriage, legalizing drugs and prostitution. There is a divide among Libertarians on abortion but it is not something that would cause violence among members.

Libertarians also don't care about color, race, creed and religion. We believe the country was founded on the idea of liberty for all.

Two major reasons why Knotts looks dreadfully ignorant. First, to use racial slurs is not a Libertarian value. We do onto others has we'd have done to us. No other political party that I know tries to espouse this as a major tenet of political life.

Second, he behaves as though he can say what he wants regardless of the consequences. Screw everybody, he'll say what he pleases.

Where do people get the idea that Libertarians are bigots? This isn't the party I belong to and I'm frustrated by the stereotype he holds of us and perpetuates in the media.

He isn't a Libertarian. He's just ignorant.

Sarah Palin

I have not said anything about her because of several reasons. First, she's not nearly as crucial to the Republican Party as pundits like Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity would have people believe. Second, she's not really worth talking about. I thought she was a lightweight, a soft politician unable to think for herself.

This former beauty queen who is a maverick unto herself doesn't have the right character to be an elected official. If anyone criticizes her right or wrong, she has to attack them with legal proceedings. I know from just being a Political Science major that its a tough field. Politicians are built of tougher stuff than the average citizen. For her to cry foul on every statement, joke or insinuation about her or her family shows her naiveté and vulnerability. The fact that she allegedly looks for criticism reveals that she is more concerned with what others think of her than her job.

By constantly needing to "set the record straight" she actually creates a bigger firestorm. Lunging at all who say anything gives nameless and faceless bloggers a bigger podium form which to reach a larger audience. Also, by calling what we do the "record" is to give us far more credit than we deserve. I'm neither her constituent nor a fellow party-member (I'm a lib lib - that's Liberal Libertarian). She owes me nothing! But I can still criticize her to my heart's content. But does what I say become a record that can be used against her in a court of law? NO! I doubt I even have any effect on any voter's mind!

Now that she has announced her resignation as Governor of Alaska she has proven many of her critics correct. She lacked the integrity to stick to the job at hand. Instead she let her ballooning and evermore cartoonish profile overwhelm her. Her "personality" became bigger than the office she held but not in the way anyone would want. It also increased her political vulnerability because those in the Alaskan government knew she had something fragile to protect: her national image, her brand. Book deals and lecture circuits are far more lucrative than the pitiful Office of Alaska Governor.

I am angry at Moose Hunter Barbie! She has set women back a decade. It may be harder for anyone to take a female Presidential Candidate seriously. Thus far, we've achieved Secretary of State thrice and Speaker of the House once. The Glass Ceiling is still the Presidential Ticket. In addition, her public face helps to reinforce a stereotype that women have increasingly worked to obliterate. The ignorant, sheltered, naive soccer/hockey mom whose ambitions go only as far as her hairdo! A woman who cares more about what others think rather than how she has lived her life. It seems her biggest problem is that instead of thinking, she just reacts. To Everything!

So like any young insecure girl uncomfortable with what she has, she stays with the "in-crowd". The trend right now is to distrust all government. Glenn Beck, a political commentator who recently left CNN for Fox News, has pointed out repeatedly how little we can trust our elected officials (Common Sense, Beck). If Palin is reading her tea leaves, she probably sees herself in the grouping that are currently unpopular. So, like a teen girl who must be seen in the latest fashion, she bails on her state in favor of more money and a maverick image that few take seriously.

I sincerely wish her luck with whatever she does. I don't think it matters much. Mostly, I think she's gunning for Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin or Laura Ingraham's job or at least their profiles and bloated bank accounts. Though I'd remind her that these women have what they have by inviting criticism! They sell more books by being polarizing and pushing so far to the right. They have what they have because of their thick skins and ability to use other's anger against them (which though I disagree with much of what they think, say and do, I do applaud this rare characteristic). I have serious reservations about Palin's ability to survive jumping from the frying pan into the fire.

On a personal note: I am an unemployed College Student who has next to nothing. Try and sue me!

Let it go, Ann...

It's been awhile.

I have had some of the worst 6 months of my life. I worked a despicable job, had a disastrous love affair, health problems and an abysmal semester. And along the way there was an election. We got now President Barack Obama. I really don't have to talk about this. I think there has been more words written about him in the past year than the entirety of literature proceeding his candidacy.

What I do want to bring up is someone I cannot stand: Ann Coulter. I can't stand her mostly because she is the reason Conservatives are so easy to mock (and rile). There have been great SNAFUs on her part such as claiming that Jews needed to be perfected and that women should not be able to vote because they don't understand money. But recently she posted in her own column a rather interesting tidbit.

When will the first reporter ask President Obama to admit that he has made mistakes? Try: Never.

No, that question will disappear for the next four years. It will be replaced by the new question for conservatives on every liberal's lips these days: Do you want Obama to succeed as president?

Answer: Of course we do. We live here, too.

But merely to ask the question is to imply that the 60 million Americans who did not vote for Obama are being unpatriotic if they do not wholeheartedly endorse his liberal agenda.

I take issue with the question "Do you want Obama to succeed as president?" The reason I take issue with this is because of the question that was asked to liberals about the war in Iraq. "Don't you want the war to succeed?" We argued that this was a loaded question. It was a question that was just as bad as "When did you stop beating your wife?" These are unanswerable questions. And Miss Coulter has a very short memory to not remember this fact. She also shows that her sense of humor is pretty much non-existent.

In addition, Miss Coulter also went on to rail about liberals:

Liberals always have to play the victim, acting as if they merely want to bring the nation together in hope and unity in the face of petulant, stick-in-the-mud conservatives. Meanwhile, they are the ones booing, heckling and publicly fantasizing about the assassination of those who disagree with them on policy matters.

Doth mine ears heareth whining? Whining is something that Ann Coulter has turned into an artform. It has enabled her to sell trite little books calling people names and laying down baseless claims and smug arrogance that the radical right laps up. As educated as she is, she uses more anecdotal evidence than facts. Or she does the most dangerous thing: generalizes. These leads to stereotypes and prejudices. This leads me to make the following statement.

Politicsm. Racism is, God willing, slowly receding though far from being history. It is not acceptable among polite society. But hating people of another party is completely acceptable. Telling lies about that party, those ideas and those who represent that party are perfectly fine. But no less disgusting. I call it politicsm for now due to the lack of another word.

As long as Ann Coulter uses unsubstantiated claims and views on liberals, or anyone for that matter, she will not have any respect from this Libertarian. She is only helping herself I might add. The arguments she uses against liberals can and do apply to everyone.

[Liberals] viciously attack all while wailing that they are the true victims.

but also states in the same text, Guilty, that

Liberals seem to have hit upon a reverse Christ story as their belief system. He suffered and died for our sins; liberals make the rest of us suffer for sins we didn’t commit.

People portray themselves as victims while viciously attacking the other side because, um, that's what humans do. We do in arguments with family, coworkers, the legal system... Ann Coulter seems to have a problem: self-awareness. Does she realize she is guilty herself of the very things she is angry about? Or would that be right up there with money and be too difficult for her to understand? She doesn't seem capable of turning the other cheek instead she is on the offensive with obvious defensive motivations. I do think if she is that hypocritical then her book titles like Slander, Treason, Godless, Guilty... actually fit her...?

I don't know how Andrew Stein was capable of dating her. Once.

After all that, I have nothing more to add. Listen to Democracy Now! for today for some stuff I really dig. David Korten is someone I can so get behind! He has great ideas that are congruent and complimentary to many of my political ideas.

You can check out Ann Coulter's column (if you must) here. You can also subscribe to Democracy Now! if you'd like.

Foot in Mouth for everyone

That's It!!!!!!

I say this with all impunity: no more Congressional comments on political activity. Not that there have been more really since the Moveon.org ad attacking General Petraeus. In fact that was ok. And there haven't been any more since....

All right, there was only the one. But repeatedly I see Congressional types and Senators get asked if Congress should make a call about the 12-year-old Bush critic that has been swift boated by the Right Wing blogosphere. But to be honest, this is still not the activity of congress. Let me explain.

Civics 101: You shoulda learned this shit in 9th grade.

There are three (3) branches to the US government. The Legislative, the Executive and the Judicial branches constitute the government at the federal level according to the constitution. The Legislature has the powers of the purse and the sword. This means they have the powers to declare war and raise taxes (Oddly enough, the big guy does not). They also have powers to create laws, enact bills, ad nauseam. In fact here are their powers:

The constitution of the United States of America (in congress assembled), Article 1, Section 8. All the numbered statements would be called powers.

1)The aforementioned power of purse and sword (providing for common defense).
2)To borrow money on the credit of the US.
3)To regulate commerce with other nations, states and even Indian tribes (I guess this was before we threw them on reservations)
4)To establish rules of Naturalization and Bankruptcies.
5)To coin money and establish and fix weights and measures
6)To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting and something else I can't remember off the top off my head (Yes, I'm doing this off the top of my head!)
7)To establish post office and I think roads, too.
8)To further progress of Arts & Sciences (read: they should be helping PBS & NPR. And the National Endowment for the Arts!)
9)To create tribunals that are inferior to the Supreme Court (cuz its like Supreme. Who can be superior to them?!?!)
10)To define and punish piracies on the high seas
11)To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisals
12)To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two years (what does that even mean?)
13)To provide and maintain a Navy (there are no restrictions on the Navy. Interesting, considering I'm ex-Navy, I like that)
14)To make rules for the government and regulations for land and naval forces
15)To provide for calling of militias and to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions.
16)To provide for the organizing, arming and disciplining the said militia (does this include the Minutemen?). This one is long but I do believe there is a part that says they can erect forts, armories and dock-yards. Yes, it specifies dock-yards. Yes, one of the vaguest legal documents in history is specific about what Congress can build for the militias. Yes, dock-yard is written in your constitution. No, Jesus is not.
17)To make all laws which shall be necessary for proper for carrying into execution the aforementioned powers, all other powers the constitution decides to give to congress and the offices and yada yada yada...

No where in there does it say “To rebuke the press for printing things, even if they are crap and badly rhymed, that Congress assembled thinks is crap”.

Reasons Congress is pissing me off. First, As much as the moveon.org ad is wrong, I don't think Congress should take up precious tax subsidized time with. I, you and the kid who delivers your paper are paying for congress to sit around and tell people on the internets to not say crap because it makes them so mad.

Second, for Congress to take time to address every little prick on the Internet is just silly. The Internet is so full of shit, there is no toilet big enough to put it into. For such a respected body (if you believe such) to single out a little turd among the shitpile is disgusting. They have better and more important things to do like getting our troops out of misguided and badly planned wars. Oh, like the scales are falling from your eyes!!!

Third, its completely politically motivated and cannot convince a thinking American that politicians aren't just covering their collective asses. There is nothing like Congress saying “OMG, IMHO those fuckups!!!!!”

So, in the spirit of Congress who obviously has too little to do, I move for the following motion:

That both houses of the Congress of the United States shall not make negative nor positive remarks in congress assembled toward the media in its many forms and formats as well as free speech by any citizen of these United States. Furthermore, Congress is urged to restrain its spirit when making bills that exceed the powers of congress as stipulated in the Constitution of the United States.

My mother seconds the motion. Motion so moved and seconded.

All those in favor say Yea:

“Yea!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

All those opposed say Nay:

[crickets in the galleries]

As the yeas outweigh the nays by 100%, the motion is resolved. Its now a bill. Mozel Tov.

Look I spent all that fucking time on this. I didn't even get to the juicy part about Ann Coulter making anti-semitic comments. I guess I can wait... no, I really can't.

For those of you who know me, you know that I think Ann Coulter is insufferable (I must be tired. There is no long string of obscenely large adjectives describing the acrimonious and repugnant spew that she calls her opinions... Oh wait...). Miss Coulter thinks her opinions matter. And despite the fact the woman is educated, she makes some really pathetic and poorly thought through comments like women should not be allowed to vote because they are stupid and have no knowledge of money. To be fair, she is just like any other political hack, Republican or otherwise, who thrives on name calling and insult mongering to sell books. For other people with actual shows and lets just be honest, jobs, they call it raising their ratings.

Ann Coulter appeared on CNBC “The Big Idea” with Donny Deutsch all the way back on Monday. But since I do not go out of my way to consume all things Coulter, I didn't hear of it till it came up on The Countdown with Keith Olberman ( I love you, Keith!), who is by the way on MSNBC, and yes, they are affiliated channels.

She made some rather anti-semitic comments but they were grounded in theology. Basically, she said that Christians want Jews to be perfected. She also used Seinfeld, a sitcom that went of the air 9 years ago as a reference for mixed race couples in New York City having chips on their shoulders. To think Ann Coulter bases her critique on modern urban society on Seinfeld boggles the mind. I think Jerry Seinfeld is weeping somewhere.

I enclose the following transcript in my already overly long post. I actually procured this from Fox News. See they aren't all bad.

DEUTSCH: Let me ask you a question. We're going to get off strengths and weakness for a second. If you had your way, and all of your — forget that any of them —
COULTER: I like this.
DEUTSCH: — are calculated marketing teases, and your dreams, which are genuine, came true having to do with immigration, having to do with women's — with abortion — what would this country look like?
COULTER: UMMMMM (pause) ... It would look like New York City during the Republican National Convention. In fact, that's what I think heaven is going to look like.
DEUTSCH: And what did that look like?
COULTER: Happy, joyful Republicans in the greatest city in the world.
DEUTSCH: No, no, no, no, but I'm talking about this country. You don't want to make this country — it's not about Republicans. I'm saying, what would the fabric of this country look like? Forget that the Republicans would be running the show.
COULTER: Well, everyone would root for America, the Democratic Party would look like Joe Lieberman, the Republican Party would look like Duncan Hunter —
DEUTSCH: No, no, no, I don't want — I'm not talking about politically the landscape. What would our — would we be safer? Would people be happier? Would they be more —
COULTER: We would be a lot safer.
DEUTSCH: Would there be more tolerance? Would there be — would women be happier, would the races get along better? The Ann Coulter subscription — prescription. What — tell me what would be different in our fabric of country, because —
COULTER: Well, all of those things.
DEUTSCH: I can give — I can give you an argument there would be more divisiveness, that there would be more hate —
COULTER: Oh, no.
DEUTSCH: That there would be a bigger difference between the rich and the poor, a lot of other — tell me what — why this would be a better world? Let's give you — I'm going to give you — say this is your show.
COULTER: Well, OK, take the Republican National Convention. People were happy. They're Christian. They're tolerant. They defend America, they —
DEUTSCH: Christian — so we should be Christian? It would be better if we were all Christian?
COULTER: Yes.
DEUTSCH: We should all be Christian?
COULTER: Yes. Would you like to come to church with me, Donny?
DEUTSCH: So I should not be a Jew, I should be a Christian, and this would be a better place?
COULTER: Well, you could be a practicing Jew, but you're not.
DEUTSCH: I actually am. That's not true. I really am. But — so we would be better if we were — if people — if there were no Jews, no Buddhists —
COULTER: Whenever I'm harangued by —
DEUTSCH: — in this country? You can't believe that.
COULTER: — you know, liberals on diversity —
DEUTSCH: Here you go again.
COULTER: No, it's true. I give all of these speeches at megachurches across America, and the one thing that's really striking about it is how utterly, completely diverse they are, and completely unself-consciously. You walk past a mixed-race couple in New York, and it's like they have a chip on their shoulder. They're just waiting for somebody to say something, as if anybody would. And —
DEUTSCH: I don't agree with that. I don't agree with that at all. Maybe you have the chip looking at them. I see a lot of interracial couples, and I don't see any more or less chips there either way. That's erroneous.
COULTER: No. In fact, there was an entire "Seinfeld" episode about Elaine and her boyfriend dating because they wanted to be a mixed-race couple, so you're lying.
DEUTSCH: Oh, because of some "Seinfeld" episode? OK.
COULTER: But yeah, I think that's reflective of what's going on in the culture, but it is completely striking that at these huge megachurches — the idea that, you know, the more Christian you are, the less tolerant you would be is preposterous.
DEUTSCH: That isn't what I said, but you said I should not — we should just throw Judaism away and we should all be Christians, then, or —
COULTER: Yeah.
DEUTSCH: Really?
COULTER: Well, it's a lot easier. It's kind of a fast track.
DEUTSCH: Really?
COULTER: Yeah. You have to obey.
DEUTSCH: You can't possibly believe that.
COULTER: Yes.
DEUTSCH: You can't possibly — you're too educated, you can't — you're like my friend in —
COULTER: Do you know what Christianity is? We believe your religion, but you have to obey.
DEUTSCH: No, no, no, but I mean —
COULTER: We have the fast-track program.
DEUTSCH: Why don't I put you with the head of Iran? I mean, come on. You can't believe that.
COULTER: The head of Iran is not a Christian.
DEUTSCH: No, but in fact, "Let's wipe Israel" —
COULTER: I don't know if you've been paying attention.
DEUTSCH: "Let's wipe Israel off the earth." I mean, what, no Jews?
COULTER: No, we think — we just want Jews to be perfected, as they say.
DEUTSCH: Wow, you didn't really say that, did you?
COULTER: Yes. That is what Christianity is. We believe the Old Testament, but ours is more like Federal Express. You have to obey laws. We know we're all sinners —
DEUTSCH: In my old days, I would have argued — when you say something absurd like that, there's no —
COULTER: What's absurd?
DEUTSCH: Jews are going to be perfected. I'm going to go off and try to perfect myself —
COULTER: Well, that's what the New Testament says.
DEUTSCH: Ann Coulter, author of "If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans," and if Ann Coulter had any brains, she would not say Jews need to be perfected. I'm offended by that personally. And we'll have more "Big Idea" when we come back.
(BREAK)
DEUTSCH: Welcome back to "The Big Idea." During the break, Ann said she wanted to explain her last comment. So I'm going to give her a chance. So you don't think that was offensive?
COULTER: No. I'm sorry. It is not intended to be. I don't think you should take it that way, but that is what Christians consider themselves: perfected Jews. We believe the Old Testament. As you know from the Old Testament, God was constantly getting fed up with humans for not being able to, you know, live up to all the laws. What Christians believe — this is just a statement of what the New Testament is — is that that's why Christ came and died for our sins. Christians believe the Old Testament. You don't believe our testament.
DEUTSCH: You said — your exact words were, "Jews need to be perfected." Those are the words out of your mouth.
COULTER: No, I'm saying that's what a Christian is.
DEUTSCH: But that's what you said — don't you see how hateful, how anti-Semitic —
COULTER: No!
DEUTSCH: How do you not see? You're an educated woman. How do you not see that?
COULTER: That isn't hateful at all.
DEUTSCH: But that's even a scarier thought. OK —
COULTER: No, no, no, no, no. I don't want you being offended by this. This is what Christians consider themselves, because our testament is the continuation of your testament. You know that. So we think Jews go to heaven. I mean (Jerry) Falwell himself said that, but you have to follow laws. Ours is "Christ died for our sins." We consider ourselves perfected Christians. For me to say that for you to become a Christian is to become a perfected Christian is not offensive at all.
DEUTSCH: We will let the audience decide then, won't we? Ann Coulter. New book. More "Big Idea" straight ahead.
She would have been better of by just going “Hm.... foot”. Ha! A quote I got from Friends no less. To be honest, she is stating what many Christian Evangelicals believe. Many will deny it and for the most part it is not ill-intentioned. They have a mission to save as many souls as they possibly can. I have no idea. I was raised Catholic. We believe in Good Works and that Judgment is reserved for God and God alone. We also said we weren't going to try to convert the Jews anymore. We weren't even going there. If anything we want to become one of the Righteous among the Nations.

So, all Ann did was present the side of Evangelical thought that is for the most part frightening. She mentioned Jerry Falwell and he probably would have rooted her on. He had some beliefs about the Jews and Israel, particularly that if there were an Israel and it conquered the Middle East, Rapture's gonna come. If it does, I got dibs on the car.

I want to point out how difficult it is for her to not base things in political terms. She has to keep everything politics. Does she consider politics when changing lanes.

Just for the hell of it, here's the YouTube entry for this. It must be seen!!!



For the love of all things good and American, someone help her!!!!!

Other news. The mercenary company Blackwater, Inc. is being sued in a US court. Well, ain't that dandy! A Philadelphia firm filed a lawsuit against the company for committing murder on behalf of the families of the men who died. The Iraqi government contends that the 17 men killed on September 16th died by “premeditated murder”. The company is usually contracted to protect US diplomats traveling through Iraq. They claim the convoy they were protecting came into danger. There has been no evidence to back this up and an investigation by both the US and Iraqi government is underway.

And the final thing I'm commenting on should have been the first. A bill has passed the the House Foreign Affairs committee with a vote of 27-21. This bill calls the slaughter of 1.5 million Armenians by Turkey, then the Ottoman Empire, during World War I, genocide. Turkey does cop to it but calls it a massacre.

This has not gone to the full house floor and may in fact, do so Friday. It has gone through committee before but never gone to the floor. If this gets passed, there may well be very shaky relations for the United States and Turkey ahead. We keep discouraging Turkey's desire to move into Northern Iraq to quash the Kurdish communities there. They shouldn't anyway. It'd be an act of war, boneheads! Secondly, they've obviously slaughtered enough.

Turkey has recalled its US ambassador and there have been protests in the streets of Istanbul. Come on. Just forget about it like you did the Armenians. I mean this is pretty insensitive of Turkey I might add. Not to mention, nobody cares. Look how quickly they stopped talking about Myanmar or Burma. And they really have a gripe!

Not to mention, its or legislature. Not yours or the United Nations. We can say the sky is green. Does that make it true? I'm not saying that we do or that the Armenian genocide did not happen but protesting something that could be so insignificant looks like you're fishing for some excuse to act torked or it really happened and you're in denial.

OK, thats it. No “on this day” segment. I'm wiped. Have a good night y'all!

Rosie O'Donnell

Recently, Rosie O'Donnell has made a spate of accusations on the mid-morning women's show The View. Some of these allegations are that the British troops being held in Iran currently, were there in Iranian waters to help kick start a conflict between the the west i.e. the US and the UK, and Iran. She also has rehashed the 9/11 conspiracy. I call that beating a dead horse.

While Miss O'Donnell has the right to free speech and can make unsubstantiated claims, she has raised the dander on many commentators, namely Bill O'Reilly. He has spent countless minutes of his evening broadcasts slamming Miss O'Donnell. He also has the right.

Why I decided to comment on this? There are requests - nay, demands - for Miss O'Donnell's head on the proverbial silver platter. She is being vilified. She has been demonized.

My question: Had she been a 1) thin 2)blonde 3) beautiful and 4) straight woman, would this be happening to her? The bias against overweight people is one that is incredibly overlooked and even more difficult to prove. But I can't help wondering because of a woman I love to hate: Ann Coulter.

Miss Coulter spews out enough toxicity to make the Lake Erie of 20 years ago look crystal clear. She has little to add to the Body politic and nothing substantial to add to the discourse promelgating the airwaves. Her vitriolic nonsense is bought by rabid fans who like the name calling and angst that floods out of her. Her calls for women (which she may be.... we aren't sure) to not have the vote notwithstanding....

So, considering the ire that Coulter raises and the fact that she is continually brought on channels like Fox to put forth her insight into the political system, what makes Rosie any different? Maybe it's the fact that she has a real day-to-day job... Ann Coulter just pops up occasionally. She has no permanant outlet on TV. She has her webstie and blog....

Is it because Rosie is a lesbian? I actually don't think this is it. In the arena of entertainment (which, let's face it, they are ALL in.... even Bill O'Reilly, which he owns up to), being a homosexual does not work against you.

But being overweight does. Some can make it: Roseanne Barr and Camryn Manheim are a couple. It's rather rare. And when you put your neck out and say something wholly controversial: woe be unto you.

I'm not siding with Miss O'Donnell. I do only so far as this: She has that right. We all do. But lets be honest: would we be calling for her termination if she were a supermodel? And if people can honestly say that it has nothing to do with it, we need to evaluate other talk show hosts and commentators whose shows are also hate-filled and worthless.

Ann v. Bill: round 1. FIGHT!

Hey, new blogger. Let's see what this looks like and if its worth the hype.

I do however, want to comment on something.

Well, Somethings!

First, I really let myself get away from doing this.... again. My apologies.

Second, I do not like Ann Coulter. And its not because I'm liberal and she ain't. I have no problems with people who completely oppose me politically. I have a quite a few close friends who do. My problem with Ann is she is way smarter than what she uses. But she relies on swagger and elitist shananigans to get her point across. Very rarely (if ever) have I seen her use the proper debate skills in an argument. I suppose her education in law included how to win a fight without proving anything. She also has a hard time being able to look into the camera when replying to people. She can stare arrows into it when she's waiting to be called on but when speaking she tends to look up randomly and frequently. She also tends to use extraneous information against people that have little to no bearing on the argument in question. I suppose this is also the trick snarky lawyers learn in Sleeze 101.

My qualm of late with Ms. Connecticut and never had to work for anything I have is her "joke" against Edwards. My qualm isn't use of the word faggot or the connection to Isaiah Washington. Its how she could connect it to John Edwards. She says that is the joke; that he is a married man with kids so it doesn't apply. That doesn't make it ironic... or any form of humor actually, that I know of. In other words, it was stupid. She says it was a joke, but honestly, I think it was an insinuation she is not willing to stand by.

Now, Bill Maher made comment about the VP and how he'd be happy (?) if he were dead. That a lot of people would be happier. That certainly makes Ann Coulter seem like a bad day at the circus. Bill! Come on!!!! Save that for the playground. To wish that the second in line dead is pretty serious and I wouldn't be surprised if men with guns weren't following your every move. Ya know, secret service agents waiting for you to prove them right. Watch yourself!!! In this day and age with a Patriot act and unchecked powers, who knows where you could end up. Guantanamo?

The President of Syria has NIMBY

That's right: Not in my backyard. Bashar Al-Assad (بشار الأس,) President of Syria, has stated that foreign soldiers in Lebanon "negates the sovereignty of Lebanon". So does a political party within the nation throwing missiles at another. The fact is, the UN has a right to step in and try to keep hostilities to verbal threats and name-calling. The undersigned parties (that would be the nations who are members) give them that right. It what its there for. To mediate conflicts so we don't have WWIII like we thought we might.

Let's put it in a smaller scale. Take a city like Chicago with its sizable Polish population starting sending rockets to Milwaukee to get at its German population for, I don't know, 6 million Poles dying in World War II. Milwaukee fights back. They send missiles back at civilian areas like Evanston and the Loop. They knock down the Sears Tower. Now, the rest of the country, a federal representative body, that these two cities and their respective states are members of, must do something since neither can stop sheeling the other. It intercedes and brokers a cease fire between the two. In the cease-fire is a plan that 5,000 troops will be provided by Illinois and 5,000 from the rest of the nation. They'll be headquartered at the border on Illinois' side, the one who started hostilities while the troops in Wisconsin, fall back to Racine. Would this violate all of Illinois' sovereignty? Think on that while I grab a cup of Earl Grey.

The fact remains these two sovereign nations need to get along and the UN, a representative body (with little real power) actually brokers such a cease-fire. Though they are having a hard time getting the troops (see earlier post), they still got this truce with both sides agreeing. That means Lebanon was ok with the French camping out on their lawn or anyone else for that matter. The thing is the Syrain President (whose birthday is September 11th) doesn't like the idea of foreign troops being so close to him. Maybe he should've thought of that before he gave Hezbollah weapons and aid.

News you can use! So I went onto the Washingtonpost.com. I like reading the Post ever since I did a term paper on the Pentagon Papers (oy vey (אױ װײ)) and saw how the Post and Times stood up to the man (w00t). Anyways, I went there. And what to my wondering eyes should appear but a bunch of Filipino teenagers with South Park gear. The article in question is about how text messaging is mobilizing political protests especially in the Phillipines where it is incredibly popular. In fact, they are the biggest users of the techology. The article goes on to cite how Filipino president Joseph Estrada was forced out of office in 2001 in a "coup de text". At first I was amazed such a thing was reported. Then I started thinking "Thanks a lot, Post!" Now over here they'll know that's how we organize rallies. They're on to us now!

News Flash: Milwaukee is the drunkest city. The Twin Cities, where I live, is #2. I could've told them that!

News Flash (...again!): The French are really sending troops!!! [faints]

On this day back in 1920 (only 86 years ago), Poland opened a can of whoop-ass and beat the ever loving shit out of Russia. WTF? Course, Russia was not the big bad USSR yet and Poland was in between big conflicts with Germany. Unless you count Milwaukee and Chicago.

Other topics of mild concern: Ann Coulter your roots called; they want their peroxide back.

Mary Jordan took that photo. Not I.