Joke of the Day

Bush and Dick Cheney are enjoying lunch at a fancy Washington restaurant, when the waitress approaches their table to take their order.

She is young and very attractive.

She asks Cheney what he wants, and he replies, “I’ll have the heart-healthy salad.” “Very good, sir,” she replies, and turning to Bush she asks, “And what do you want, Mr. President?” Bush answers, “How about a quickie?”

Taken aback, the waitress slaps him and says, “I’m shocked and disappointed in you. I thought you were bringing in a new administration that was committed to high principles and morality. I’m sorry I voted for you.” With that, the waitress departed in a huff.

Cheney leans over to Bush, and says, “Mr. President, I believe that’s pronounced ‘quiche’.”

Thanks to Sian!

Who are you and what have you done with GWB?

George W. Bush has done the unthinkable. The world listened with great interest today as Bush actually took responsibility for something. Many experts believe it’s the first time in his life Bush has taken responsibility for an error.

To the extent the federal government didn’t fully do its job right, I take responsibility.

Was I the only one who went slightly cross-eyed after reading that? I had to read it two or three times and double check to make sure I wasn’t reading The Onion.

James Carville

I went with Lauren, Brad, Heather, Nathan and Brandon to a local fundraising event for
Senator Cantwell which featured short talks by Seattle’s Mayor Nickels as well as the Democratic pundit, James Carville.

After we had paid our $35(USD) entrance fee we got something to drink and hit up the buffet line. A little while later Ron Sims did a few thank you’s and introductions. Mayor Nickels got up and talked about how Seattle was all Democrat all the time and the various initiatives throughout the city, one of which is an initiative to sign all of the major US cities on to the Kyoto Protocol, which Bush refused to sign. 178 cities and counting have given Bush the collective bird on that front, which I commend. As one of the movers who helped me move said to me regarding Bush’s refusal to the Kyoto Protocol, “Who the hell doesn’t want clean water and clean air?”

Up next was James Carville, who spoke for about ten minutes about what was going on in the country and how power didn’t need another puppet in D.C. Probably the funniest part, which is sad at the same time, is when he talked about what the country has lost since Bush and his cronies have entered the White House. Here is a short list from my somewhat fuzzy memory.

  1. A five trillion dollar surplus. I assume this is over the long run, because I remember a $70 billion dollar yearly surplus.
  2. The respect of the entire world. Who the hell is going to listen to us after the debacle that was Iraq?
  3. An entire city (New Orleans). Everyone chuckled when he said, “Nobody though we could lose an entire city, but we did.” Kind of a laugh in disbelief.

The most poignant point he made about us losing the respect of the entire world is that when the Bay of Pigs thing was going on in the early 60’s a US diplomat went to brief France’s President at the time, Charles de Gaulle. The US diplomat was shuffling through his briefcase when de Gaulle asked him what he was doing. The diplomat said he was getting the photographic proof that would show de Gaulle the nuclear missiles and unequivocally prove the US’s point. de Gaulle said, “Don’t be absurd. I have the word of the President of the United States.”

What foreign dignitary in their right mind would even believe the photographs we send these days?

Rove in Hot Water

It’s recently come out that Rove, the deputy chief of staff for President Bush, did, in fact, tell at least one reporter indirectly that Valerie Plume was a CIA agent. According to Newsweek Rove told a reporter in an email “wilson’s wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd issues who authorized the trip.” Of course, the right wingers are spinning this by saying that Rove didn’t have any intent or that he didn’t specificlly out her by name. So what? His actions lead directly to an undercover CIA agent being outed in the public press with great risk to her and her family. Ignorance isn’t and shouldn’t be used as an excuse for what many Americans would view as treasonous behavior.

Now the White House is taking some heat as evidenced by a heated exchange between a reporter and Press Secretary Scott McClellan.

QUESTION: Do you stand by your statement from the fall of 2003, when you were asked specifically about Karl and Elliot Abrams and Scooter Libby, and you said, “I’ve gone to each of those gentlemen, and they have told me they are not involved in this”?

QUESTION: Do you stand by that statement?

MCCLELLAN: And if you will recall, I said that, as part of helping the investigators move forward on the investigation, we’re not going to get into commenting on it. That was something I stated back near that time as well.

QUESTION: Scott, this is ridiculous. The notion that you’re going to stand before us, after having commented with that level of detail, and tell people watching this that somehow you’ve decided not to talk.

You’ve got a public record out there. Do you stand by your remarks from that podium or not?

MCCLELLAN: I’m well aware, like you, of what was previously said. And I will be glad to talk about it at the appropriate time. The appropriate time is when the investigation…

QUESTION: (inaudible) when it’s appropriate and when it’s inappropriate?

MCCLELLAN: If you’ll let me finish.

QUESTION: No, you’re not finishing. You’re not saying anything.

You stood at that podium and said that Karl Rove was not involved. And now we find out that he spoke about Joseph Wilson’s wife. So don’t you owe the American public a fuller explanation. Was he involved or was he not? Because contrary to what you told the American people, he did indeed talk about his wife, didn’t he?

MCCLELLAN: There will be a time to talk about this, but now is not the time to talk about it.

QUESTION: Do you think people will accept that, what you’re saying today?

MCCLELLAN: Again, I’ve responded to the question.

QUESTION: You’re in a bad spot here, Scott…


… because after the investigation began — after the criminal investigation was under way — you said, October 10th, 2003, “I spoke with those individuals, Rove, Abrams and Libby. As I pointed out, those individuals assured me they were not involved in this,” from that podium. That’s after the criminal investigation began.

Now that Rove has essentially been caught red-handed peddling this information, all of a sudden you have respect for the sanctity of the criminal investigation.

MCCLELLAN: No, that’s not a correct characterization. And I think you are well aware of that.

We know each other very well. And it was after that period that the investigators had requested that we not get into commenting on an ongoing criminal investigation.

And we want to be helpful so that they can get to the bottom of this. Because no one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the president of the United States.

I am well aware of what was said previously. I remember well what was said previously. And at some point I look forward to talking about it. But until the investigation is complete, I’m just not going to do that.

QUESTION: So you’re now saying that after you cleared Rove and the others from that podium, then the prosecutors asked you not to speak anymore and since then you haven’t.

MCCLELLAN: Again, you’re continuing to ask questions relating to an ongoing criminal investigation and I’m just not going to respond to them. QUESTION: When did they ask you to stop commenting on it, Scott? Can you pin down a date?

MCCLELLAN: Back in that time period.

QUESTION: Well, then the president commented on it nine months later. So was he not following the White House plan?

MCCLELLAN: I appreciate your questions. You can keep asking them, but you have my response.

QUESTION: Well, we are going to keep asking them.

When did the president learn that Karl Rove had had a conversation with a news reporter about the involvement of Joseph Wilson’s wife in the decision to send him to Africa?

MCCLELLAN: I’ve responded to the questions.

QUESTION: When did the president learn that Karl Rove had been…

MCCLELLAN: I’ve responded to your questions.

QUESTION: After the investigation is completed, will you then be consistent with your word and the president’s word that anybody who was involved will be let go?

MCCLELLAN: Again, after the investigation is complete, I will be glad to talk about it at that point.

QUESTION: Can you walk us through why, given the fact that Rove’s lawyer has spoken publicly about this, it is inconsistent with the investigation, that it compromises the investigation to talk about the involvement of Karl Rove, the deputy chief of staff, here?

MCCLELLAN: Well, those overseeing the investigation expressed a preference to us that we not get into commenting on the investigation while it’s ongoing. And that was what they requested of the White House. And so I think in order to be helpful to that investigation, we are following their direction.

QUESTION: Scott, there’s a difference between commenting on an investigation and taking an action…

MCCLELLAN: (inaudible)

QUESTION: Can I finish, please?

MCCLELLAN: I’ll come back to you in a minute.


QUESTION: Does the president continue to have confidence in Mr. Rove?

MCCLELLAN: Again, these are all questions coming up in the context of an ongoing criminal investigation. And you’ve heard my response on this.

QUESTION: So you’re not going to respond as to whether or not the president has confidence in his deputy chief of staff?

MCCLELLAN: You’re asking this question in the context of an ongoing investigation, and I would not read anything into it other then I’m simply going to comment on an ongoing investigation.

QUESTION: Has there been any change, or is there a plan for Mr. Rove’s portfolio to be altered in any way?

MCCLELLAN: Again, you have my response to these questions.

Ouch. So you have the White House on record saying they asked Rove personally if he was involved and Rove said “no”. Either Rove was doing some serious hackery behind the scenes or someone else is lying in this equation. Either way it looks like Rove’s political career could be ending real soon now. My questions would be geared more towards how much the rest of the White House knew about Roves dirty tricks. More links and video at

It's not about the pot stupid

The Supreme Court just screwed you over big time and you don’t care because the decision involved pot. Everyone has been sounding off about the recent decision that state laws governing medicinal use of marijuana do not override the federal ban despite the pot being grown, used and given away for free within the confines of a single state. Does that sound like “interstate commerce” to you?

Congress and the federal government et al have used the “interstate commerce” clause in the constitution to grab tons of power. They used this to justify income taxes, drug policies, etc. Anyone who is in favor of a strong centralized federal government scares me. Why? Well, of course, I’ll tell you why.

This means individual states cannot decide what is good for their own state. For instance, Texas could outlaw gay marriage while California chooses to make it legal. The Supreme Court, essentially, has said with this decision that states do not have the right to govern what happens within their borders. Remember, the pot was grown, consumed and given away for free within the borders of the State of California. Why does the federal government get to step in here? The voters of California have spoken. They feel medicinal use of marijuana, which is prescribed by a doctor, should be legal. If they don’t care, then why should the federal government all the way back in Washington, D.C. care?

This smacks of majority tyranny. If 51% of the states think that something should be illegal, but Vermont thinks it should be legal, then who are we to care? If you don’t like a state law then don’t live in/visit that state. Simple as that.

Followup to Tyranny of the Majority

Before I respond to Mark’s comment, I want to make a few things clear. First, I was talking about the dangers of the simple majority. Obviously, if 90% of Americans think that something should be so there is little, if anything, someone could do to stop them. Also, what I do in public, versus what I do in private are two very different things. I should be given wide latitude to do whatever I wish in the confines of my own home and, especially, in my own head.

Liberties I’ve lost in the last few years:

  1. It’s now legal for authorities to search my home via a secret, sealed warrant, without my knowledge (violating my right to due process, privacy and a slew of other rights).
  2. It’s now legal to hold me indefinitely without charges on the sole basis of being a suspected terrorist (violating my right to due process).
  3. If I were a cheerleader in Texas I couldn’t shake my booty quite as much as I could in other states (violating my right to free speech, or, in this case, my right to shake my booty).
  4. I can no longer check a book out from the library without the government having access to my reading list (chilling effect on freedom of speech).
  5. Banks must no report any “suspicious” activity in my bank accounts directly to the government (illegal search and seizure).
  6. In three years, when the Real ID Act goes into effect, I’ll have to carry around a form of ID that, literally, broadcasts my vital personal information (age, sex, location, photo, signature, etc.) (illegal search and seizure).

If you want to tell the world that Jefferson really hates majoritys, maybe you should question why our political system is based on the representation of the majority. It certainly isn’t the fault of any one party.

Actually, thanks to the Bill of Rights, our system isn’t set up solely on the basis of majority representation. In fact, there is something called “checks and balances”, that was built into the system to prevent this very thing. Just because 51% of Americans think we should make it a crime to speak your mind, doesn’t give the simple majority the right to strike down the First Amendment.

We don’t live within a spread landscape of hundreds of miles between towns spanning state-to-state. We must deal with what we, the people, have decided based on our majority.

This is true. For the most part this is how it works, but if 51% of Americans think that two men holding hands or two girls kissing in public should be outlawed should we make it so? Hopefully, such a law would be struck down as it violates the First Amendment. What if 51% of Americans think it should be illegal to carry a concealed weapon? Again, this violates your Second Amendment rights.

Well how isn’t a no-smoking section a tyrannical-majority? Are all non-smokers now officially biggots because they want to be segregated from those evil smoke-inhaling fiends of Satan?

No, this is a good example of a law that was enacted because smoking does affect the people around you when you are in a public place. I would link to the plethora of studies that support the fact that second-hand smoke is deadly and causes cancer, but I trust we can all use Google here. Also, it should be noted that smoking has been banned within the confines of small places (resturants, bars, etc.) and not in wide open public places (parks, sidewalks, etc.). I would fight any ban on smoking in wide open public places, but I think bans on smoking in, say, airplanes and resturants makes perfect sense.

If your party and ideals were happening, you know you wouldn’t be saying all of this…

Can’t argue here. If a Libertarian was in office I’d be doing a naked jig in the streets of Seattle. We’d have strictly enforced personal rights, a small federal government and we sure as hell wouldn’t be in Iraq. I, however, wouldn’t be any happier if a Democrat was in office.

Yes dramatic effect is fun… but more importantly… we can sensationalize anything you want to pretend is a right given by our fore-fathers. They wanted us to marry brother and brother, smoke weed, drink at 9, hug a tree, and make sure a God-loving man was never President for fear of morality!

Actually, George Washington owned slaves, Thomas Jefferson even banged a few of his slaves and Benjamin Franklin was a natorious womanizer and drunk. In fact, Franklin once said “Beer is proof God loves us and wants us to be happy.” So I doubt he’d be too happy about our current drinking laws. I should also note that weed was legal until the early 1900’s, but had been in America long before that, so I doubt the Founding Fathers found many problems with weed. Washington was so distraught as a young boy over having killed a cherry tree he confessed to his sins. I’m not sure how they’d feel about gays, but I’m fairly sure they’d recognize that what people do in their own homes is up to them. This is a good place to mention that the reason marriage licenses even exist today was because they were once used to restrict interracial couples from marrying. An absurd though by today’s standards.

I have no problem with a religious man being President as long as he realizes and understands, as Jefferson implied with his use of the word “Creator”, that his God is not the only god and that his morals aren’t the only morals in the country. Our country is a country filled with Muslims, Roman Catholics, Jews and even a few atheists.

My point is if you are unhappy with the government then do something more proactive to change it rather than complain retroactively about the election. The election has come and gone. 3 1/2 more years of this evil tyranny. Creator [not God] save us all from these Tyrannical Christians; who knows, they may keep trying to save babies and prevent planes from flying at our buildings. The horror of it all.

I’m doing what I can. I email/write/call my representatives and I vote. Other than running for office or organizing protests I’m not sure what else I can do. Also, please go and read my post again. Not once did I mention the election nor did I complain about it.

Also, I’m all for saving babies! Babies, despite being annoying and dirty little creatures, they are kind of cute and have their moments of being funny. However, an egg is not a baby in the same way that an egg at the super market is not a chicken. I recognize that we need to define when a fetus is “alive” and use that as a benchmark for abortions. I think a good measure would be the age at which the average featus could survive outside of the womb, although I am not a doctor so I can’t say for sure.

And, as numerous reports and studies are showing, the measures put into place and the billions spent on airport security have not made us significantly more safe in any real way from terrorist attacks such as the ones carried out on 9/11. Making a woman drink her own breast milk does not make us safer.

The mindset that 51% of a population can dictate what the other 49% of the population does is completely insane, which is why we have the Bill of Rights. It’s also why it takes a vote of 3/4 of the states to change The Constitution. I think the current sense of entitlement or that the current administration has a “mandate” is absurd. In my previous post I was merely stating that I find this idea that a minority majority (I won’t say “majority” since less than half the population votes) can rule the rest of the country with total disregard to the Bill of Rights, The Constitution and the thought that the rest of the country doesn’t matter is disgusting. It, also, “doesn’t scale well”.

Real ID Act

The federal government is going to be voting on emergency funding for the troops, which is a good thing. I’m sure they could use the money. The real concern I have is the Real ID Act that has been added as a rider to this bill. This bill would require the following information to be present on your drivers license and available via a “common machine-readable technology” (most likely RFID tags that allow scanners to read such information wirelessly from up to 30 feet away):

  1. The person’s full legal name.
  2. The person’s date of birth.
  3. The person’s gender.
  4. The person’s driver’s license or identification card number.
  5. A digital photograph of the person.
  6. The person’s address of principle residence.
  7. The person’s signature.
  8. Physical security features designed to prevent tampering, counterfeiting, or duplication of the document for fraudulent purposes.
  9. A common machine-readable technology, with defined minimum data elements.

This is a complete victory for identification thieves who will now be able to glean such information with a quick scan of your drivers license. Everything they need to assume your identity is stored, digitally, on a little piece of plastic that thousands of people lose daily and everyone hands over to a total stranger at least once a day. It’s not too late to fight this bill. You can fax your Senators at and you can also mail Congressment Sensenbrenner at Below is my email to him (feel free to copy and paste and send this to your senators).

Dear Congressmen Sensenbrenner,

I’m emailing from the state of Washington with my concerns over your Real ID Act. The bill states that a drivers license must contain my full legal name, date of birth, gender, license number, digital photo of myself, my principle address (not a PO BOX or work address) and my signature. This means anyone with a camera phone will have more than enough information with a quick click of the shutter. It makes me quite uneasy to know that many judges, cops and women could have such information readily available to stalkers, rapists and other criminals.

To make matters worse you have required a common machine-readable technology, which would be decided upon by the Dept. of Homeland Security. From what I have read they are leaning towards the use of RFID technology, which would make such identification cards easily readable with the proper equipment (which is quite affordable) from anyone within 30 feet of my person.

The centralized database also concerns me. This would, essentially, give the darker element of the internet a single point of access to enough personal information to wreak total havoc in the area of identification theft.

Please, reconsider this disastrous piece of legislation.


Joseph C. Stump

The worst part is they plan on linking all of the state databases together into a centralized location. I give it a year, maybe two, before some hacker/cracker hacks his/her way into the database and hase enough information to, literally, hold the public hostage.

UPDATE: I just got an email back from a good friend who works on The Hill with regards to the Real ID Act.

It will be law sometime in the near future. The Senate is considering the supplemental appropriations conference report that contains Real ID. It’s a conference report, so it cannot be amended in any way. It will likely be on the president’s desk sometime in a the next week or

Sounds rather bleak, but it shouldn’t stop you from faxing/emailing/calling your Senators.

Senator wants decency standards for cable/satellite

A Senator from Alaska wants to push decency standards onto subscription cable and satellite services. To you Senator I say, “F*ck off, I paid to see Dennis Leary act like the asshole he is on Rescue Me.” I haven’t extensively researched the issue, but I see two major problems with pushing decency laws onto cable and satellite services.

  1. It’s a paid subscription. I paid to see supposedly “non-decent” content (ie. The Shield, Rescue Me and anything on Comedy Central). It’s like telling Playboy they need to adhere to decency standards. Give me a break! You have to be 18 to get cable so what’s the problem? I’m a big boy, I can handle a few “F” bombs and shots of various degrees of nudity.
  2. These networks are built outside of the scope of the FCC. They are private networks paid for by the companies who build them.

But what about the children?!? Screw you and the children. Just because you’re too stupid to enable and use the plethora of parental controls available to you (V Chip, TiVo’s parental controls, your cable box’s controls, etc.) or you’re too lazy to actually pay attention to what your kid watches doesn’t mean I should suffer. I’m sick and tired of people ducking their parental responsibilities. I’m really getting tired of people enabling the government to tell me what I can/should and cannot/should not watch/listen/view/read.

Wake up people! You have a responsiblity to govern what your children watch and if you personally object to a TV show then CHANGE THE CHANNEL YOU MORON! Or, RTFM and set up your TV to only display PG-13 material. Quit being lazy and take some responsiblity for your own life and for crying out loud don’t let the government tell us what to watch/view/listen to/read.

N. Korea has nukes

Iraq, Iran, the Middle East, insurgents, oil; the list goes on. Supposedly, the entire region is filled with people who want to “destroy our way of life.” But we’re forgetting someone: N. Korea has nukes. Not only do they have nukes, but they readily admit having them and wanting more.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: The true threat to this country is N. Korea. They have been making not-so-veiled threats that they had the capabilities to make nukes and that they had a right to create such weapons. Add those facts to the fact that their leader is a bonafide nut job and you’ve got a serious problem on your hands.

Where is the tough rhetoric from our Secretary of State? Where are the neocons on this one? Nowhere. You know why? They don’t have anything we want (read: oil). That and invading N. Korea could cause serious problems with U.S.-China relations and you don’t want to piss off a billion consumers do you?

Hey Iran! We be cool! Psyche!

Was I the only one who tentatively let out a short-lived sigh when Rice said ‘Iran is not on the agenda’ on February 5th, 2005.

We have many diplomatic tools still at our disposal and we intend to pursue them fully. The question is simply not on the agenda at this point.

And then today Rice says Iran needs to put out or get out.

[The] Iranians need to hear that if they are unwilling to take the deal, really, that the Europeans are giving […] then the Security Council looms.

She then goes on to say that if they do not then “the next steps are in the offing.”

And I think everybody understands what the ‘next steps’ mean

What could that mean? It could mean that Bush & Co. are gearing us up for another war against somebody who isn’t an outward threat to us … again. I can’t be the only one just a little scared that we’re heading for another war. Remember Bush saying they won’t be re-instating the draf? You can forget about that if we attack Iran “pre-emptively”.