tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-61898412024-03-07T16:39:21.154-06:00Well...... Duh!Events, Technology, Politics. Think of it as a culture smoothie.Erniehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15685494236831422630noreply@blogger.comBlogger60125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6189841.post-35522067256292760982010-04-25T10:03:00.002-05:002010-04-25T10:09:41.721-05:00Catching up, going bad, and making it work...It has now been far too long since I last visited this blog. I've been very busy with a tremendous number of seachanges in my life.<br /><br />I have moved from Austin, Texas back to New England. My wife and I have separated (over a year ago now), she has since moved to Santa Fe New Mexico, and I've moved up here. My two sons (Ethan and Spencer) moved with her to Santa Fe, and as we have currently planned, they will join me in New England for the summer, and do the school year with her.<br /><br />I will edit this blog as I think of things that ought to be said. Right now, I don't have a tremendous amount of things to say.Erniehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15685494236831422630noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6189841.post-88726047080325525922009-01-21T09:08:00.002-06:002009-01-21T09:48:16.350-06:00Emergence, a very cool thing.Check thiututs out. Emergence (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence">linked above and here</a>) is the idea that simple systems in great numbers develop organization and become complex systems naturally. The really cool part or this is that it seems to occur in everything, at some level or another.<br /><br />Simple: Marbles on a table. Simply rolling around. You sweep them into a cup, and through no influence of your own, they organize themselves in the most efficient orientation possible. Space, vibration, heat, everything is automatically transfered through the marbles in the most efficient way possible. Cooler: If you dump those marbles into a bag, they do it again. Automatically.<br /><br />Complex: Now go way down to smaller things. Atoms. Atoms form structure. They create molecules. Those molecules create substances like water. Water organizes itself into droplets. Droplets form streams, then rivers, then lakes and eventually oceans. It gets more amazing when you consider that the right moleules + water + heat = life. You, me, etc...<br /><br />All because of emergence.<br /><br />I've got more thoughts on emergence. I'll share them later.Erniehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15685494236831422630noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6189841.post-84913835057090644952009-01-08T10:36:00.002-06:002009-01-08T11:40:13.798-06:00Emergence: Reinventing myselfI have decided to reinvent myself. No, I'm not going to turn myself into a toaster or anything, I'm going to stick it out there and see if anything gets damaged.<br /><br />Okay, how about an update? Last time I got around to posting, I was doing a contract for Dell. That didn't work out well and I politely found a replacement for myself and exited stage left.<br /><br />Then I went to work of a company here in Austin, doing what I love to do, working with some pretty cool tech. I was employed for 3 mths until they "merged with" (read that as "was bought by") their majority shareholder. So, two days later, I'm unemployed again. That was in June.<br /><br />Fast forward to today: My wife and I are on the skids. My MS has gotten worse, and I have gone from a cane to a walker, so interviews are not easily handled. Certainly sales is out of nthe picture and typing has becomre more difficult. <br /><br />SO, I'm reinventing myself. I can do that because I am God. And so are you.<br /><br />More on my reinvention and emergence later. <br /><br />Stay tuned.Erniehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15685494236831422630noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6189841.post-52799198746738310392007-12-05T16:07:00.002-06:002007-12-05T16:14:59.246-06:00One legged man in an a55 kicking contestWell, things have come and gone and come around again. It's like a subway with nobody at the station...<br /><br />Well, I was working at Cisco Systems here in Austin as a report writer, then I went to work for a company called <a href="http://www.liveoakinteractive.com">Live Oak Interactive</a>, run by my good friend Andy Meadows, as a Project Manager, and now I'm working at Dell as a Program Manager. This feels weird simply because I had a friend laid off from Dell about a month before I started. Not in the same role (God, that would SUCK), but related. It's not perm, but it's good enough right now, and it has the added bonus of being a step up in title.<br /><br />Have you found <a href="http://www.linkedin.com">LinkedIn</a> yet? You ought to go, it's like Plaxo, only better, IMO.<br /><br />That's all for now. More later.Erniehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15685494236831422630noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6189841.post-44985904370302648052007-12-05T16:07:00.001-06:002007-12-05T16:07:28.169-06:00Erniehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15685494236831422630noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6189841.post-61602782444460496532007-04-26T16:06:00.000-05:002007-04-26T16:25:19.204-05:00Something that goes "Beep!"Hello ladies! (think sleazy lounge lizard voice there)<br /><br />This time I want to help you. No, not by asking you to do anything you wouldn't normally do but most guys hope you would (Hint: Think VERY tight clothing). No, this time I'm going to bail you out.<br /><br />Okay, you screwed up. Seriously. You not only screwed the pooch, but you took it out back, beat the snot out of it and took it's lunch money. Fine. You're convinced that the man in your life is going to leave when he finds out, right? Wrong. Here's what you do. <br /><br />Buy him something that goes "Beep!". Not just anything that goes "Beep!" but something he doesn't already have. There, your problems are all solved. Guys are simple creatures.<br /><br />If you haven't seen Monty Python's The Meaning of Life, go ahead and rent it. Watch it when you have the time to laugh yourself to tears. Go ahead, I'll wait...<br /><br />(Sometime later...)<br /><br />Alright, watched it? Funny wasn't it? Did you like the part about the fish in the fish tank watching the diners in the restaurant? Me too. "Hey look, Howard's getting eaten!" "Is he?"<br /><br />Anyway, a LONG time before that, in the first scene (The Miracle of Birth), the Hospital Administrator shows off the "Machine that goes 'BING!'". See how happy he was with it? Same deal with your guy.<br /><br />Not cutting it huh? As long as you didn't sleep with the best man in your wedding, things are still repairable. Seriously. If you slept with your Maid of Honor, your only fault is not tape recording it or inviting him into the fun. You're still cool.<br /><br />Okay, so it's really, really, really bad. You trashed his computer. You wrecked his Lexus with your $600 shoes from Needless-Markup. Not to worry. Here's what you do.<br /><br />Still get him something that goes "Beep!", but this time try to make it gas powered.<br /><br />Until next time...Erniehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15685494236831422630noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6189841.post-6397733827120857012007-04-23T15:08:00.000-05:002007-04-23T15:29:21.155-05:00Managing your guy, the simple recipieI have a lot of female friends, and strangely some of them think that they have their "guy" well handled. Odds are, they actually do, but every now and again they come to me and say something like "He just doesn't seem to appreciate me anymore." or maybe "He doesn't listen at all". Then they ramble on about how they'll mention something and yet it goes unheeded. I have a simple solution for these things: Two words. "Thank you." Now understand that I'm not talking about "Thanks." I'm talking about an actual thank you. <br /><br />The next time your guy does something like change a lightbulb that needed changing, remember it. Yes, you most certainly COULD have changed that lightbulb, and no, it wasn't that big a deal, but take a moment and actually say "Thank You." <br /><br />Be specific. Don't just say "Oh, thanks." That's not a Thank You, that's the same as a Poker Sorry. You know, "Gee, sorry I cracked your Aces full of Queens with a four of a kind." BS. You don't really mean it. Instead, when your man gets down from his ladder, or goes to throw out the offending bulb, take a moment and say something like "You know, honey, I was going to change that bulb, and I know it wasn't a big deal, but you've done it for me and now I don't have to take the time to do it myself. I really appreciate it. Thank You for changing that bulb out for me." There, that wasn't so bad, was it? No. Guess what? You'll never have another burned out bulb as long as your marriage lasts. It's that simple. Same thing with anything else. Folding clothes, sweeping the floor, cleaning the counter tops, anything.<br /><br />Let me give you a hint into the mind of the average man. The only reason your guy changed that lightbulb in the first place is that it was bugging him. He needed to see something well, and the bulb outage was making it harder to do. So, he changed the bulb. Same thing with a counter top. If the counter top is dirty (and by dirty, I don't mean "Hasn't been wiped in 12 hours"), he will wipe it down if he needs it to be clean. Caveat: He will only wipe down the area he needed to be clean. He won't wipe to the end of the counter, he's not going to use it. There is not need to wipe down the part he wasn't going to use. <br /><br />Now here's the cool part: From now on, he's going to wipe down the entire counter. Why? Because it mattered to you. To YOU, it made a difference.<br /><br />That's all guys really care about. To feel like they make a difference. To YOU. We only exist in a relationship to serve YOU. If we don't feel like we're making the difference, we stop trying. So, a little Thank You goes a REALLY long way. The down side? You need to check in on some of these things on an irregular basis. Call it once every two or three months. Reiterate your thanks for him doing something that means something to you. Again, not the disposable "Thanks." but something more thought out.<br /><br />Tip #2 coming shortly.Erniehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15685494236831422630noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6189841.post-1176498182593507762007-04-13T16:02:00.000-05:002007-04-13T16:03:02.606-05:00Found this out on the Intarwebs somewhere...I can't remember where this way, but I found it through reddit.com...<br /><br />"Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards. With his first swallow of water, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe because some stupid commie liberal fought to ensure their safety and that they work as advertised.<br /><br />All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance -- now Joe gets it, too.<br /><br />Joe prepares his morning breakfast; bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.<br /><br />In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and the amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained.<br /><br />Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for the laws to stop industries from polluting our air.<br /><br />He walks on the government-provided sidewalk to subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.<br /><br />Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union.<br /><br />If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.<br /><br />It is noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FDIC (or the NCUA, if he's part of a credit union) because some godless liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression.<br /><br />Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime. Joe also forgets that his in addition to his federally subsidized student loans, he attended a state funded university.<br /><br />Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards to go along with the tax-payer funded roads.<br /><br />He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers' Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans.<br /><br />The house didn't have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification.<br /><br />He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to.<br /><br />Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that the beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day. Joe agrees: "We don't need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have." "Erniehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15685494236831422630noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6189841.post-1148654279380335352006-05-26T08:44:00.000-05:002006-05-26T09:37:59.440-05:00Okay, so it's been a LONG while since my last update..As many of you know, I have two kids now, and they're taking every single available moment of my time to the point where I can't count on doing anything I don't NEED to do. I know you've all been waiting with baited breath for my latest and greatest update to Well Duh!, but now you can sleep again, because here it is.<br /><br />Because of the above, I've decided to shaite-can any attempts at putting together a podcast for the time being. I may still do one, but right now, I don't have the time.<br /><br />The inspiration for today's diatribe is linked above, and I think it should be required reading for everyone.<br /><br />Today's topic is "The War on Terror." I have a couple of big problems here:<br /><br />1) The is a war on an ideology. This ideology will never entirely be wiped off the face of this earth. There is ALWAYS be someone, somewhere in this world who intends to get what they want through the use of fear. Merriam-Webster defines Terrorism thusly:<br /><br />Main Entry: ter·ror·ism<br />Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m<br />Function: noun<br />: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion<br />- ter·ror·ist /-&r-ist/ adjective or noun<br />- ter·ror·is·tic /"ter-&r-'is-tik/ adjective<br /><br />By this most basic definition, terrorism is EVERYWHERE. We, the United States of America, are engaged in Terrorism. Anyone remember "Shock and Awe"? My point is, this is a war that will NEVER, EVER, NOT AS LONG AS THE HUMAN RACE EXISTS, end. Might as well make it the WAR ON AIR!<br /><br />2) What the President and staff keep telling us is that we're exacting this war to protect Freedom, protect our country, save The Constitution. Sounds really noble, but if the way we do this is to kill thousands (some say hundreds of thousands), watch everybody we can strive to see through the use of wire tapping, throw people in jail without charges, without trial, without recourse, censor our press (including the internet), jail reporters for TELLING THE TRUTH, create "Free Speech Zones", can anyone who speaks out against the government and any of several thousand other little bits over the last 5 years, then what the hell are we actually fighting FOR? Honestly, we've sold the grain to keep the horse.<br /><br />What infuriates me is that the American people are putting up with it. I'm a Dad, I want to protect my children as much as ANYONE, and probably more than most, but there's a limit. I will NOT let my children grow up into a world where the freedoms that The Constitution of the United States unumerates are conditional. They are NOT conditional. Note that I did not say that the Constitiution gurarantees our rights, it merely states what they are and that it is the goverment's responsibility to protect and defend them.<br /><br />If you haven't seen it, Boston Legal had an episode on March 14th of this year entitled "Stick it" where Alan Shore (James Spader) gives a closing argument which very clearly says all of this things I've been thinking. You can get both the Audio (mp3) and the Video (wmv) from <a href="http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/03/15.html#a7532">Crooks And Liars.</a> I am only going to link the page that they're available so that you can pick for yourself and read about it as well, but I will quote some of it.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Alan Shore's closing argument<br /></span><br /><div style="text-align: justify; font-family: arial;">Alan Shore: When the weapons of mass destruction thing turned out to be not true, I expected the American people to rise up. Ha! They didn't.<br /><br />Then, when the Abu Ghraib torture thing surfaced and it was revealed that our government participated in rendition, a practice where we kidnap people and turn them over to regimes who specialize in torture, I was sure then the American people would be heard from. We stood mute.<br /><br />Then came the news that we jailed thousands of so-called terrorists suspects, locked them up without the right to a trial or even the right to confront their accusers. Certainly, we would never stand for that. We did.<br /><br />And now, it's been discovered the executive branch has been conducting massive, illegal, domestic surveillance on its own citizens. You and me. And I at least consoled myself that finally, finally the American people will have had enough. Evidentially, we haven't.<br /><br />In fact, if the people of this country have spoken, the message is we're okay with it all. Torture, warrantless search and seizure, illegal wiretappings, prison without a fair trial - or any trial, war on false pretenses. We, as a citizenry, are apparently not offended.<br /><br />There are no demonstrations on college campuses. In fact, there's no clear indication that young people seem to notice.<br /><br />Well, Melissa Hughes noticed. Now, you might think, instead of withholding her taxes, she could have protested the old fashioned way. Made a placard and demonstrated at a Presidential or Vice-Presidential appearance, but we've lost the right to that as well. The Secret Service can now declare free speech zones to contain, control and, in effect, criminalize protest.<br /><br />Stop for a second and try to fathom that.<br /><br />At a presidential rally, parade or appearance, if you have on a supportive t-shirt, you can be there. If you are wearing or carrying something in protest, you can be removed.<br /><br />This, in the United States of America. This in the United States of America. Is Melissa Hughes the only one embarrassed?<br /><br />*Alan sits down abruptly in the witness chair next to the judge*<br /><br />Judge Robert Sanders: Mr. Shore. That's a chair for witnesses only.<br /><br />Really long speeches make me so tired sometimes.<br /><br />Judge Sanders: Please get out of the chair.<br /><br />Alan: Actually, I'm sick and tired.<br /><br />Judge Sanders: Get out of the chair!<br /><br />Alan: And what I'm most sick and tired of is how every time somebody disagrees with how the government is running things, he or she is labeled unAmerican.<br /><br />U.S. Attorney Jonathan Shapiro: Evidentally, it's speech time.<br /><br />Alan: And speech in this country is free, you hack! Free for me, free for you. Free for Melissa Hughes to stand up to her government and say "Stick it"!<br /><br />U.S. Attorney Jonathan Shapiro: Objection!<br /><br />Alan: I object to government abusing its power to squash the constitutional freedoms of its citizenry. And, God forbid, anybody challenge it. They're smeared as being a heretic. Melissa Hughes is an American. Melissa Hughes is an American. Melissa Hughes is an American!<br /><br />Judge Sanders: Mr. Shore. Unless you have anything new and fresh to say, please sit down. You've breached the decorum of my courtroom with all this hooting.<br /><br />Alan: Last night, I went to bed with a book. Not as much fun as a 29 year old, but the book contained a speech by Adlai Stevenson. The year was 1952. He said, "The tragedy of our day is the climate of fear in which we live and fear breeds repression. Too often, sinister threats to the Bill of Rights, to freedom of the mind are concealed under the patriotic cloak of anti-Communism."<br /><br />Today, it's the cloak of anti-terrorism. Stevenson also remarked, "It's far easier to fight for principles than to live up to them."<br /><br />I know we are all afraid, but the Bill of Rights - we have to live up to that. We simply must. That's all Melissa Hughes was trying to say. She was speaking for you. I would ask you now to go back to that room and speak for her.<br /><br /></div><br /><br />That is all. More another time.Erniehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15685494236831422630noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6189841.post-1129058429765247832005-10-11T13:42:00.000-05:002005-10-11T14:20:43.376-05:00Podcast? Other Stuff.I've been busier than a one legged man in an ass-kicking contest lately, so sorry for the on again, off again updates.<br /><br />I've thinking of putting together a podcast or two. There is a list of things I'd like to get off my chest, and typing them our seems an awfully weak way of putting it out. With that in mind, I think I'm going to expound a bit on some recent topics. I haven't decided yet what they're all going to be, but I've decided to call my Podcast (iPodcast? Whatever.) "The Left Hook". I'm going to take 5 or 10 items (no more than 10, less if time doesn't allow) and expound at length on them. They'll be paired with a blog entry, so if you'd like, you can come back to a particular podcast you like and read the Cliff's Notes.<br /><br />Here's my current list:<br /><br />1) Me: Ernie<br />2) Harriet Miers<br />3) DNC failure to capture the White House<br />4) Plame-gate etc<br />5) Where the hell is the followup on the Downing Street Memos?<br />6) Diebold et al. (aka, The Ohio Debacle)<br />7) Slanted media response to ANYTHING<br />8) The Terror Alert system<br />9) Hurricanes (the storm, not the drink)<br />10) The War on Terror<br /><br />If you have any suggestions as to what I should talk about instead, drop me a line. I'd love to hear it. Granted, it might get shitcanned but then again it might not. Send it in anyway. If what you send is amusing enough, I might, just might, read it on the 'cast. We'll see.<br /><br />Side note: I saw a bumper sticker the other day which cracked me up, and I decided to make it a t-shirt... Here's what it looks like:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.cafepress.com/geekwear.33826082" target="_blank"><img src="http://jitcrunch.cafepress.com/jitcrunch.aspx?bG9hZD1ibGFuayxibGFuazoyX0IuanBnfGxvYWQ9TDAsaHR0cDovL3pvb20uY2FmZXByZXNzLmNvbS8yLzkwMjI0MjJfem9vbS5qcGd8fHNjYWxlPUwwLDE2MiwxNjJ8Y29tcG9zZT1ibGFuayxMMCxBZGQsMTU5LDEwMHxjcD1yZXN1bHQsYmxhbmt8c2NhbGU9cmVzdWx0LDAsNDgwfGxvYWQ9c2FtcGxlLGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuY2FmZXByZXNzLmNvbS9jb250ZW50L2dsb2JhbC9pbWcvc2FtcGxlX2NydW5jaF9vdmVybGF5LmdpZnxzY2FsZT1zYW1wbGUsMCw0ODB8Y29tcG9zZT1yZXN1bHQsc2FtcGxlLEFkZCwwLDB8Y29tcHJlc3Npb249OTV8"></a><br /><br />Of course, click it, it pops to the site where you can buy one. Because I'm a money-grubbing whore, that's why!Erniehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15685494236831422630noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6189841.post-1128366111020979722005-10-03T13:47:00.000-05:002005-10-03T14:03:03.323-05:00Why, that's a good question: A quick lesson about The Constitution.Somebody on <a href="http://www.fark.com" target="_blank">Fark.com</a> (actually, <a href="http://www.totalfark.com" target="_blank">TotalFark.com</a> (the best $5/mth I spend)) asked the following question: "So, what WOULD it take to impeach the President?"<br /><br />Why, that's a darn good question! I wonder: How many people have actually read The Constitution of the United States of America? At all? Okay, now if you're older than 25, other than in High School? That's what I thought. Let's revisit a couple of parts, shall we? Here are the relevant sections: <br /><br />Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5 reads:<br />"Clause 5: The House of Representatives shall chuse(<i>sic</i>) their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."<br /><br />Article 1, Section 3, Clause 6 reads:<br />"Clause 6: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present."<br /><br />Clause 7, same Section and Article continues:<br />"Clause 7: Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."<br /><br />Lastly, Article 2, Section 4 states IN IT'S ENTIRETY:<br />"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors"<br /><br />This leads us to ask "Okay, what EXACTLY are 'High Crimes and Misdemeanors'?"<br /><br />According to <a href="http://slate.msn.com/id/1002016/" target="_blank">this writeup</a> (Slate, pops), <b>anything the Congrass says.</b><br /><br />This also implies "And nothing else." For the lay person, that means that as long as the Legislative Branch is held by the same party as the Executive branch, nothing will happen.<br /><br />This is the exact reason why the Legislative, Executive and Judicial Branches of our government were DESIGNED to be held by different groups.<br /><br />I bet you're wishing you had bothered to go an vote now, aren't you? <br /><br />I am urging, nay pleading to you, the reader: The next time you have an Election, be it local, state or Federal, get off your ASS and vote. If you're not registered for vote, <a href="http://www.iwanttovote.com/index.cfm?source=google" target="_blank">do it now.</a> I don't care which way you vote. Just vote. Only 1 out of every 5 registered voters voted in the last election. And only 30% of those who are ELIGIBLE to vote are registered. Note: If you're one of the 3 dozen people who live in New Hampshire, Wyoming or North Dakota, you can't use that website.Erniehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15685494236831422630noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6189841.post-1126794407907110742005-09-15T08:59:00.000-05:002005-09-15T09:26:47.950-05:00"Under God" in the Pledge of AllegianceOkay, this is long and drawn out, but I think it's worth it to touch on some of the major parts of this whole issue.<br /><br />During The McCarthy Era (it was an "Era"? Whodathunkit?) the President glomed onto the whole "under God" thing at the same time as McCarthy (mostly coincidental, BTW) in response to a percieved threat from the Russians after WWII that the US was not capable of responding to militarily. Specifically, I'm talking about the beginning of the Cold War. It was a way to differentiate Americans from Communists in the minds of the American public. It was pretty effective, too.<br /><br /> The issue here is, to make someone a "threat" in people's minds, you need to paint them first as "different" before you can make them "Enemy". After all, 99% of Russian Communists were/are caucasian, so there is no obvious difference between Russians and Americans, no easy way to paint a "Us" and "Them" picture, except that they speak a different language, but that doesn't apply because Spain, France and a whole bunch of other of our Friends (caps intentional) don't speak English. Worse, the Russians had been our Allies in WWI (an alliance of convenience, granted, but the average American didn't understand this), and took horrible losses supporting the cause every man, woman and child in America sacrificed so must to achieve, so in the minds of most Americans, they were our friends. Remember, most people at this time were not familiar with the phrase "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", they were just friends. Period.<br /><br />Keep in mind, to most people different=strange=alien and from alien, it's a really small leap to enemy, and "they're godless, we're not" was a very quick, cheap and easy way to make this transition. The fast-food approach, if you will.<br /><br />At the same time, the Soviets (during The Khrushchev Era) were quickly becoming a threat with the detonation of their first nuclear weapon in 1953. The Knights Of Columbus quickly responded to this new (and real) threat by beginning a campaign to add the words "Under God" to the Pledge. After all, it was illegal under the Communist Regime to practice any faith at all. They were godless. We, on the other hand, could practice any religion we wanted (as long as it recognized "God", in the singular apparently. I guess worshiping Zeus, Hera, Aphrodite and Apollo wouldn't have gone over well.).<br /><br /> So, when did "Under God" finally get added? 1954, one year after the USSR detonated it's first nuclear weapon. Not a coincidence. The USA had a new enemy, and the Cold War had begun. <br /><br />Adding "Under God" to the Pledge was part of the mechanism which made accepting our former "friends" as "enemies", because "They" were godless, "We" were not, even though a good percentage of the US didn't subscribe to any organized faith. Keep in mind, it wasn't until Kennedy that we had a Catholic President, and we still haven't had a Jewish President. Even then, it was a big deal (no, huge) to have a Catholic as President. Not because Catholicism (per se) was so alien or unacceptable to the average American, but because the Roman Catholic faith was the publicly acknowledged impetus for some of the most horrific events in human history (Think: The Inquisitions, The Crusades, The Holocaust (yes, the Vatican endorsed it), Burning of "witches" and other heretics, do I really need to go on?), and the threat of that kind of thing scared many Americans. This was, after all, one of the major reasons we came over the pond in the first place, right? To get away from non-representative, Church driven government. <br /><br />Of course, the USSR dissolved in 1991 under Gorbachev and the Cold War ended. With it, Russians were once again allowed to follow their faith, and faith as a whole was no longer verboten. Indeed, most Russians today practice a faith of some kind.<br /><br />To summarize, we added "under God" to the pledge in order to assist our Government in painting the Russians as our enemy. I think it was a VERY Christian thing to do, personally. Make your own judgement about whether that's a good thing or not.<br /><br />So, what is my opinion about "under God" in the Pledge? I think it should go. It served it's purpose, and no longer has a function. A select portion of our population will die trying to keep it there, or if it gets dropped, reinstated. The cynical side of me (se previous post) says that this is in essence brainwashing. The organized brainwashing of our children, mandated by the government. It implies that if you don't believe in a God, then you're un-American, when nothing could be farther from the truth. It's exclusionary (see the references to polytheism above), and it is just Anti-American. I'm against it being there officially. If you want to add it on your own, go right ahead. Just like when you take an oath in court, you have the option of NOT swearing on a bible. That option is there because if you swear to God, and you don't believe in God, without an alternative option, you can't be held accountable.<br /><br />IF you want to read more about this history I've talked about here, and I recommend you do if you're interested, follow the links below:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/U/UnionS1ov.asp" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Short history of the USSR (pops)</a><br /><a href="http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">History of the Pledge of Allegiance (pops)</a><br /><a href="http://www.religioustolerance.org/jud_pers.htm" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Persecution of the Jews</a>, <a href="http://www.religioustolerance.org/vat_hol1.htm" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Support of the Holocaust by the Vatican</a><br /><a href="http://www.religioustolerance.org/wic_burn.htm" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Burning of witches and heretics</a><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">The 4 (yes, FOUR) Inquisitions</a><br /><a href="http://www.crisismagazine.com/april2002/cover.htm" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">The 7 major Crusades</a>Erniehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15685494236831422630noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6189841.post-1123522197306464552005-08-08T12:11:00.000-05:002005-08-08T12:29:57.313-05:00I might just be WAY too cynical, but you decide:I was thinking last night about the current state of affairs here in the wonderful United States of America. I was thinking this: "What ever happened to the up-in-arms over the Downing Street Memos?<br /><br />I mean, the Bush administration never responded to the inquiries in any solid fashion, as best as I can discern. Did everyone just give up? Is everyone just fine with the fact that Bush and Co. (the "Bush Crime Family", as Air America likes to call them) doctored information to justify us going into Iraq on very specious terms? I'm not, and I'm a bit pissed that it has fallen completely off the radar.<br /><br />So I was trying to figure out what that is. Here's what I came up with; it appears that Karl "Turd Blossom" Rove leaved the identity of a CIA operative in order to get back at a journalist who basically debunked the whole idea of WMD in Iraq. Sure, that's pretty obvious, isn't it? Instant news item. Gets all the attention, right?<br /><br />So now I ask: "What if the apparent treasonous actions of the President's (much hated) chief politcal advisor is a ruse? What then?" Stay with me here. What if Rove decided to create the <span style="font-style: italic;">illusion</span> that he leaked this information just to drag the media firmly away from the Downing Street Memos? I personally don't put it above Rove to hold onto some specific, undenyable, rock-solid evidence of his innocence long enough for the American public to conveniently forget about the Downing Street memos and everything they imply. In fact, if I were Rove, this is something I might come up with.<br /><br />"Okay boss, looky here: everyone hates me, we know that. This Downing Street thing is eating our lunch, and the media just won't let go of it. Remember that whole thing a couple of years ago about that CIA operative's identity being leaked to the press? Here's what we do. We make it look like I did it. Just make it look like it. Of course we know that I had nothing to do with it and that someone else in the CIA leaked it, but we'll make it look like I did it. The media will go nuts. They'll smell blood in the water. Air America hosts will do nothing but talk about it from now until I decide to end it. No more Downing Street Memo shite. When Downing Street is good and gone, and a couple of months before the '06 elections, I'll 'leak' my evidence that not only did I not leak the identity, but I was trying my best to contain the damage. The DOJ and their fancy-schmancy special procecutor can find that I had nothing to do with it Instant win for you, for the entire party and me. Whaddayathink?"Erniehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15685494236831422630noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6189841.post-1121269289009737442005-07-13T10:39:00.000-05:002005-07-13T10:41:29.016-05:00More SwagOnly $19.95! Just click on the T-Shirt to buy one...<br /><br /><a href="http://www.cafepress.com/geekwear.16941062"><img src="http://jitcrunch.cafepress.com/jitcrunch.aspx?bG9hZD1ibGFuayxibGFuazoxMjZfRl9jOC5qcGd8bG9hZD1MMCxodHRwOi8vem9vbS5jYWZlcHJlc3MuY29tLzAvNzk0NDQwMF96b29tLmpwZ3x8c2NhbGU9TDAsMTUyLDE1Mnxjb21wb3NlPWJsYW5rLEwwLEFkZCwxNzEsMTAxfGNwPXJlc3VsdCxibGFua3xzY2FsZT1yZXN1bHQsMCw0ODB8bG9hZD1zYW1wbGUsaHR0cDovL3d3dy5jYWZlcHJlc3MuY29tL2NvbnRlbnQvZ2xvYmFsL2ltZy9zYW1wbGVfY3J1bmNoX292ZXJsYXkuZ2lmfHNjYWxlPXNhbXBsZSwwLDQ4MHxjb21wb3NlPXJlc3VsdCxzYW1wbGUsQWRkLDAsMHxjb21wcmVzc2lvbj05NXw=" /></a>Erniehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15685494236831422630noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6189841.post-1121117032655572252005-07-11T16:03:00.000-05:002005-07-11T16:23:52.660-05:00Well looky here!<a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/07/20050711-3.html">Scott McClellan got lambasted this morning...</a><br /><br />I've got to admit, I love it when this kind of stuff goes on. Here is a long dialogue where Scott McClellan backs off from his <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030929-7.html">previous stance that Karl Rove had nothing to do with the Plame leak</a>. Alright, he didn't "back off", he retreated. Okay, let's be honest, it was more along the lines of "fleeing" than it was retreating.<br /><br />Okay, so to wrap it up: The White House (all caps, because we're talking about the office) will not make comments while the investigation is ongoing. Actually let's clear it up a little bit more: The White House will not make comments while they're looking bad. To be absolutely clear here: George W. Bush and his lackeys will not acknowlege that things are gong badly.<br /><br />Of course, we already know this. The Insurgency in Iraq has been in it's "last throes" for well over a year now. The must have a bunch of "last throes". Hundreds, maybe even thousands..<br /><br />Okay, so Scott, answer this; Just how many "Throes" does the insurgency have? Or will you refuse to comment on that?<br /><br />I've got $50 right here that says that if Karl Rove is implicated in a criminal act, he have goes up on charges, certainly isn't convicted, and I've got another $100 that says that even if convicted, Martha Stewart's sentence is going to look like hard time at Fort Leavenworth prison compared to what Rove gets.<br /><br />Just guess.. Mission Accomplished indeed.Erniehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15685494236831422630noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6189841.post-1121105494766371152005-07-11T13:10:00.000-05:002005-07-11T13:11:34.773-05:00The BRAFFY Awards.<a href="http://crushedbyinertia.blogspot.com/2005/07/braffy-awards-nominees.html">Clicky.</a>Erniehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15685494236831422630noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6189841.post-1121099243545055442005-07-11T11:18:00.000-05:002005-07-11T11:31:21.186-05:00Who is "Ernie"?<table align="center" border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="350"><tbody><tr><td bg="" style="color: rgb(153, 153, 153);" align="center"><span style=""><b>Your Career Type: Enterprising</b></span></td></tr><tr><td bgcolor="#cccccc"><center><img src="http://www.quizdiva.net/careerquiz/enterprising.jpg" /></center><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br />You are engertic, ambitious, and sociable.<br />Your talents lie in politics, leading people, and selling things or ideas.<br /><br />You would make an excellent:<br /><br />Auctioneer - Bank President - Camp Director<br />City Manager - Judge - Lawyer<br />Recreation Leader - Real Estate Agent - Sales Person<br />School Principal - Travel Agent - TV Newscaster <br /> <br />The worst career options for your are investigative careers, like mathematician or architect.</span></td></tr></tbody></table><div align="center"><a href="http://www.blogthings.com/idealcareerquiz/">What's Your Ideal Career?</a></div><br /><br /><table align="center" border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="350"><tbody><tr><td bg="" style="color: rgb(218, 187, 153);" align="center"><span style=""><b>You Are a Frappacino</b></span></td></tr><tr><td bgcolor="#ead3b8"><center><img src="http://www.quizdiva.net/coffeequiz/frappacino.jpg" /></center><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br />At your best, you are: fun loving, sweet, and modern<br /><br />At your worst, you are: childish and over indulgent<br /><br />You drink coffee when: you're craving something sweet<br /><br />Your caffeine addiction level: low</span></td></tr></tbody></table><div align="center"><a href="http://www.blogthings.com/coffeequiz/">What Kind of Coffee Are You?</a></div><br /><table align="center" border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="350"><tbody><tr><td bg="" style="color: rgb(255, 178, 178);" align="center"><span style=""><b>You Are 45% American</b></span></td></tr><tr><td bgcolor="#b2c4ff"><center><img src="http://www.quizdiva.net/howamerican/american2.jpg" /></center><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">America: You don't love it or want to leave it.<br />But you wouldn't mind giving it an extreme make over.<br />On the 4th of July, you'll fly a freak flag instead...<br />And give Uncle Sam a sucker punch!</span></td></tr></tbody></table><br /><div align="center"><a href="http://www.blogthings.com/howamericanareyouquiz/">How American Are You?</a></div><br /><table width=350 align=center border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2><tr><td bgcolor="#999999" align=center><font face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif" style='color:black; font-size: 14pt;'><b>You Are Chocolate Chip Ice Cream</b></font></td></tr><tr><td bgcolor="#CCCCCC"><center><img src="http://www.quizdiva.net/icecream/chocolate-chip.jpg"></center><font color="#000000">You are kind, popular, and generous.<br />You tend to be successful at anything you try.<br />A social butterfly, you are great at entertaining a crowd.<br />You are most compatible with strawberry ice cream.</font></td></tr></table><div align="center"><a href="http://www.blogthings.com/whatflavoricecreamareyouquiz/">What Flavor Ice Cream Are You?</a></div>Erniehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15685494236831422630noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6189841.post-1121092562228762092005-07-11T09:33:00.000-05:002005-07-11T09:36:17.856-05:00A quick non-political post. Imagine that!Nothing witty to say here, but a shout out to my readers in Florida today. I'm watching the news and seeing the devastation Hurricane Dennis has wrought on Florida during its visit and I just wanted to say that I sincerely, hope everyone in Florida is okay or will be okay in the near future. My thoughts are with you today as you struggle to rebuild your lives.Erniehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15685494236831422630noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6189841.post-1120238585625748912005-07-01T11:32:00.000-05:002005-07-01T12:28:03.156-05:00Recent SCOTUS decisions:Recently, the SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) make a couple of rulings (in the form of "opinions") that will affect your life.<br /><br />1) <a href="http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/27jun20051200/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-480.pdf" target="_blank">MGM vs. Grokster Inc.</a> (pops) - No real surprise here. They ruled (5-4) that MGM is in the right, and Grokster et al. are in the wrong. Apparently the crux of their opinion is that Grokster or anyone else who writes software that's primary use (legal or not) can be used for nefarious means is wrong. As far as I can tell, that means that if the terrorists who made 9/11 happen used Microsoft Word(tm) to jot down notes for their plan, then Microsoft is liable for what they did with it. That makes Microsoft party (through aiding and abetting) to their crime. Let's sue Microsoft and see what happens..<br /><br />2) <a href="http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/27jun20051200/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/03-1693.pdf" n="" target="_blank">10 Commandments on Government Property</a> (pops) - This is just weird. In one instance, it's okay, in the other it isn't. I think the driver here is actually the American Public. I think that the SCOTUS wanted to avoid the huge number of protests that would come up when they tried to remove the monument from the TX state capitol grounds. That's all it is. Either way, I don't give a flying flip one way or the other. Neither is really a mandate from the government for any particular religion. It's a matter of opinion, and they liked the way they looked, and they had meaning for them. Still, I'm tempted to start my own religion and make flowers holy. Then I'll petition the government to remove all flowers from all govt property. Certainly, the money used to maintain them could find a better use elsewhere, hmmm?<br /><br />and lastly:<br /><br />3) <a href="http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/23jun20051201/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-108.pdf">Eminent domain use by local government and it's justification</a> (pops) - All right, this one is truly imporant. It almost made me blog a post titled "Hell has Officially Frozen Over" because of it. The SCOTUS ruled that your city, county or state CAN take your property against your will for the right reasons. The reasons? Yep, you guessed it, Money. Plain and simple. If the new facility/property to replace what is there currently will bring greater tax revenue to the municipality then that's just fine. It's covered as "public good" under the 5th Amendment to the Constitution. It doesn't matter what you've paid, or that you own it full-on, square according to the land commissioner. If they want to build a gas station right on top of your den, have at it. Granted, they have to give you "just compensation" for the property, but "just compensation" is up for debate. For example, in the State of Texas, if the State wants to take your land, just compensation, what they are required to give you, is figured on the average single acre value across the WHOLE FREAKING STATE! How much is that, you ask? Well, in 1998, it was $1.06/acre.<br /><br />So, why has "Hell Officially Frozen Over" in my opinion, you ask? Really, it's only for one reason. I actually agreed with the disenting opinion on this. Not unusual, really, except that the disenters were: Thomas, Rehnquist, O'Connor and Scalia. I thought for a second that I might have become a hard line Republican, but no. Still, I felt like I needed a shower.<br /><br />Now, turn about is fair play, I understand. Read about the <a href="http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1432150/posts" target="_blank">Lost Liberty Hotel with it's Just Desserts Cafe</a> (you know the drill) that some developer wants to build in Keane, NH. This is just freaking genius. I want to set up a website to start taking reservations here. I know that if I'm back up near my hometown, I will make it a point to stay there if this thing gets built.<br /><br />Also worth noting: Today, Sandra Day O'Connor tendered her resignation as an Associate Justice of the SCOTUS to the POTUS (Idiot in Chief). According to NBC, CNN and others, the front runners to be nominated are John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales. CNN thinks that if Bush were to nominate Gonzales, is might help the Republicans in the next election. Fat freaking chance. Gonzales. Gonzales is the tie-wearing thug who rubber-stamped the torture methods used in Abu Ghriab and Guantanamo, ferchristsakes! Never mind the fact that he advised the President on how and where to house the "detainees" so that the SCOTUS couldn't touch them, and that it would be irrelevant as to whether or not their "enemy combatant" designation was held up.<br /><br />Of course, Rehnquist is about to shuffle off this mortal coil any time now, and his replacement will be a doozy.<br /><br />The only way out of this that I can see is if the Dems stop the nomination of her replacement (a la John Bolton) until the next Senate election, at which point we, (you and I, progressives) ACTUALLY get out and <span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">VOTE </span>in the next election and give the Congress back to the intelligent people while taking it away from the monster theocratic idealogues currently running the show over there!<br /><br />I'm so mad I could just spit. Not that you could tell or anything.<br /><br />P.S. Oh yeah, new item on <a href="http://www.cafepress.com/geekwear" target="_blank">GeekWear</a>: Just $17.99!<br /><img src="http://jitcrunch.cafepress.com/jitcrunch.aspx?bG9hZD1ibGFuayxibGFuazoxMDZfRi5qcGd8bG9hZD1MMCxodHRwOi8vem9vbS5jYWZlcHJlc3MuY29tLzAvNzcwOTY0MF96b29tLmpwZ3x8c2NhbGU9TDAsMTcxLDE3MXxjb21wb3NlPWJsYW5rLEwwLEFkZCwxNTksMTE4fGNwPXJlc3VsdCxibGFua3xzY2FsZT1yZXN1bHQsMCw0ODB8bG9hZD1zYW1wbGUsaHR0cDovL3d3dy5jYWZlcHJlc3MuY29tL2NvbnRlbnQvZ2xvYmFsL2ltZy9zYW1wbGVfY3J1bmNoX292ZXJsYXkuZ2lmfHNjYWxlPXNhbXBsZSwwLDQ4MHxjb21wb3NlPXJlc3VsdCxzYW1wbGUsQWRkLDAsMHxjb21wcmVzc2lvbj05NXw=" />Erniehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15685494236831422630noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6189841.post-1119457915785310172005-06-22T11:28:00.000-05:002005-06-22T11:31:55.796-05:00A note from Scott Ritter, former US weapons inspector in Iraq.[Ed. note: This is just sickening to me. The Onion had a satire article titled "Bush lays out exit strategy: 'We're going through Iran!'". Just like the headline after GWB's assention to the throne.. I have made no changes to this article.]<br /><br /><h4 style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 200); text-align: center;"><span style=""><span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial;">The US war with Iran has already begun</span></span></h4> <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial;"> </span> <h4 style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-weight: normal; color: rgb(200, 0, 0); text-align: center;"><span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial;"><small> Scott Ritter, Aljazeera.net</small></span></h4> <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial;"> <small> </small><small> </small> </span> <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial;"> <small> </small></span> <p align="center"> <table border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="3" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td valign="top" width="100%"><p align="justify"><span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial;font-size:78%;">Sunday 19 June 2005 - Americans, along with the rest of the world, are starting to wake up to the uncomfortable fact that President George Bush not only lied to them about the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (the ostensible excuse for the March 2003 invasion and occupation of that country by US forces), but also about the very process that led to war.<br /><br />On 16 October 2002, President Bush told the American people that "I have not ordered the use of force. I hope that the use of force will not become necessary."<br /><br />We know now that this statement was itself a lie, that the president, by late August 2002, had, in fact, signed off on the 'execute' orders authorising the US military to begin active military operations inside Iraq, and that these orders were being implemented as early as September 2002, when the US Air Force, assisted by the British Royal Air Force, began expanding its bombardment of targets inside and outside the so-called no-fly zone in Iraq.<br /><br />These operations were designed to degrade Iraqi air defence and command and control capabilities. They also paved the way for the insertion of US Special Operations units, who were conducting strategic reconnaissance, and later direct action, operations against specific targets inside Iraq, prior to the 19 March 2003 commencement of hostilities.<br /><br />President Bush had signed a covert finding in late spring 2002, which authorised the CIA and US Special Operations forces to dispatch clandestine units into Iraq for the purpose of removing Saddam Hussein from power.<br /><br />The fact is that the Iraq war had begun by the beginning of summer 2002, if not earlier.<br /><br />This timeline of events has ramifications that go beyond historical trivia or political investigation into the events of the past.<br /><br />It represents a record of precedent on the part of the Bush administration which must be acknowledged when considering the ongoing events regarding US-Iran relations. As was the case with Iraq pre-March 2003, the Bush administration today speaks of "diplomacy" and a desire for a "peaceful" resolution to the Iranian question.<br /><br />But the facts speak of another agenda, that of war and the forceful removal of the theocratic regime, currently wielding the reigns of power in Tehran.<br /><br />As with Iraq, the president has paved the way for the conditioning of the American public and an all-too-compliant media to accept at face value the merits of a regime change policy regarding Iran, linking the regime of the Mullah's to an "axis of evil" (together with the newly "liberated" Iraq and North Korea), and speaking of the absolute requirement for the spread of "democracy" to the Iranian people.<br /><br />"Liberation" and the spread of "democracy" have become none-too-subtle code words within the neo-conservative cabal that formulates and executes American foreign policy today for militarism and war.<br /><br />By the intensity of the "liberation/democracy" rhetoric alone, Americans should be put on notice that Iran is well-fixed in the cross-hairs as the next target for the illegal policy of regime change being implemented by the Bush administration.<br /><br />But Americans, and indeed much of the rest of the world, continue to be lulled into a false sense of complacency by the fact that overt conventional military operations have not yet commenced between the United States and Iran.<br /><br />As such, many hold out the false hope that an extension of the current insanity in Iraq can be postponed or prevented in the case of Iran. But this is a fool's dream.<br /><br />The reality is that the US war with Iran has already begun. As we speak, American over flights of Iranian soil are taking place, using pilotless drones and other, more sophisticated, capabilities.<br /><br />The violation of a sovereign nation's airspace is an act of war in and of itself. But the war with Iran has gone far beyond the intelligence-gathering phase.<br /><br />President Bush has taken advantage of the sweeping powers granted to him in the aftermath of 11 September 2001, to wage a global war against terror and to initiate several covert offensive operations inside Iran.<br /><br />The most visible of these is the CIA-backed actions recently undertaken by the Mujahadeen el-Khalq, or MEK, an Iranian opposition group, once run by Saddam Hussein's dreaded intelligence services, but now working exclusively for the CIA's Directorate of Operations.<br /><br />It is bitter irony that the CIA is using a group still labelled as a terrorist organisation, a group trained in the art of explosive assassination by the same intelligence units of the former regime of Saddam Hussein, who are slaughtering American soldiers in Iraq today, to carry out remote bombings in Iran of the sort that the Bush administration condemns on a daily basis inside Iraq.<br /><br />Perhaps the adage of "one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist" has finally been embraced by the White House, exposing as utter hypocrisy the entire underlying notions governing the ongoing global war on terror.<br /><br />But the CIA-backed campaign of MEK terror bombings in Iran are not the only action ongoing against Iran.<br /><br />To the north, in neighbouring Azerbaijan, the US military is preparing a base of operations for a massive military presence that will foretell a major land-based campaign designed to capture Tehran.<br /><br />Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld's interest in Azerbaijan may have escaped the blinkered Western media, but Russia and the Caucasus nations understand only too well that the die has been cast regarding Azerbaijan's role in the upcoming war with Iran.<br /><br />The ethnic links between the Azeri of northern Iran and Azerbaijan were long exploited by the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and this vehicle for internal manipulation has been seized upon by CIA paramilitary operatives and US Special Operations units who are training with Azerbaijan forces to form special units capable of operating inside Iran for the purpose of intelligence gathering, direct action, and mobilising indigenous opposition to the Mullahs in Tehran.<br /><br />But this is only one use the US has planned for Azerbaijan. American military aircraft, operating from forward bases in Azerbaijan, will have a much shorter distance to fly when striking targets in and around Tehran.<br /><br />In fact, US air power should be able to maintain a nearly 24-hour a day presence over Tehran airspace once military hostilities commence.<br /><br />No longer will the United States need to consider employment of Cold War-dated plans which called for moving on Tehran from the Persian Gulf cities of Chah Bahar and Bandar Abbas. US Marine Corps units will be able to secure these towns in order to protect the vital Straits of Hormuz, but the need to advance inland has been eliminated.<br /><br />A much shorter route to Tehran now exists - the coastal highway running along the Caspian Sea from Azerbaijan to Tehran.<br /><br />US military planners have already begun war games calling for the deployment of multi-divisional forces into Azerbaijan.<br /><br />Logistical planning is well advanced concerning the basing of US air and ground power in Azerbaijan.<br /><br />Given the fact that the bulk of the logistical support and command and control capability required to wage a war with Iran is already forward deployed in the region thanks to the massive US presence in Iraq, the build-up time for a war with Iran will be significantly reduced compared to even the accelerated time tables witnessed with Iraq in 2002-2003.<br /><br />America and the Western nations continue to be fixated on the ongoing tragedy and debacle that is Iraq. Much needed debate on the reasoning behind the war with Iraq and the failed post-war occupation of Iraq is finally starting to spring up in the United States and elsewhere.<br /><br />Normally, this would represent a good turn of events. But with everyone's heads rooted in the events of the past, many are missing out on the crime that is about to be repeated by the Bush administration in Iran - an illegal war of aggression, based on false premise, carried out with little regard to either the people of Iran or the United States.<br /><br />Most Americans, together with the mainstream American media, are blind to the tell-tale signs of war, waiting, instead, for some formal declaration of hostility, a made-for-TV moment such as was witnessed on 19 March 2003.<br /><br />We now know that the war had started much earlier. Likewise, history will show that the US-led war with Iran will not have begun once a similar formal statement is offered by the Bush administration, but, rather, had already been under way since June 2005, when the CIA began its programme of MEK-executed terror bombings in Iran.<br /><br /><i>Scott Ritter is a former UN weapons inspector in Iraq, 1991-1998, and author of Iraq Confidential: The Untold Story of America's Intelligence Conspiracy, to be published by I B Tauris in October 2005.<br /><br />The opinions expressed here are the author's and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position or have the endorsement of Aljazeera.</i><br /><br /><br /></span></p></td></tr></tbody></table><span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial;"><small><br /> <small> </small></small></span></p> <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial;font-size:78%;color:#111111;"> <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial;font-size:78%;"> <b>:: </b> <i>Article nr. 12776 sent on 20-jun-2005 01:46 ECT</i><br /></span></span> <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial;font-size:78%;color:#111111;"><span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial;font-size:78%;"><span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial;font-size:78%;"><b>:: </b> <i>The address of this page is : <a href="http://www.uruknet.info/?p=12776">www.uruknet.info?p=12776</a></i></span></span></span>Erniehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15685494236831422630noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6189841.post-1118169426401092912005-06-07T13:35:00.000-05:002005-06-07T13:37:06.413-05:00The Downing Street Memo[Editor's note: I have not changed, highlighted, added or deleted anything from this. It should be noted that the British govt did authenticate this memo, and an anonymous source in the U.S. described the contents as "absolutetly accurate".]<br /><br /><div class="bodyplain"> <p>Text of the Downing Street Memo - a document containing meeting minutes transcribed during the British Prime Minister's meeting on July 23, 2002</p> <p>• As originally reported in the The Times of London, May 1, 2005</p> <p>(to print in large text reliably, increase the text size view in your browser, the text will then print larger as well)</p> <hr align="left" noshade="noshade" size="1" width="75%"> <p>SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY</p> <p>DAVID MANNING<br /> From: Matthew Rycroft<br /> Date: 23 July 2002<br /> S 195 /02</p> <p>cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell</p> <p>IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY</p> <p>Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.</p> <p>This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.</p> <p>John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.</p> <p>C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.</p> <p>CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.</p> <p>The two broad US options were:</p> <p>(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).</p> <p>(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.</p> <p>The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:</p> <p>(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.</p> <p>(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.</p> <p>(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.</p> <p>The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.</p> <p>The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.</p> <p>The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.</p> <p>The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.</p> <p>On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.</p> <p>For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.</p> <p>The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.</p> <p>John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.</p> <p>The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.</p> <p>Conclusions:</p> <p>(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.</p> <p>(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation.</p> <p>(c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.</p> <p>(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam.</p> <p>He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.</p> <p>(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.</p> <p>(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.</p> <p>(I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)</p> <p>MATTHEW RYCROFT</p> <p>(Rycroft was a Downing Street foreign policy aide)</p> <p><end></p> <p>********************************************</p> <p>Cast of Charaters–who are the people mentioned here?</p> <p>Below is a breakdown of the various individuals mentioned in the memo - all of whom were present during the meeting with the Prime Minister.</p> <p>- Foreign Policy Advisor - David Manning<br /> - Matthew Rycroft - aide to Manning, wrote up the minutes of the meeting.<br /> - Defence Secretary - Geoff Hoon<br /> - Foreign Secretary - Jack Straw<br /> - Attorney-General - Lord Goldsmith,<br /> - Cabinet Secretary - Sir Richard Wilson<br /> - Chair of the Joint Intelligence Committee - John Scarlett,<br />- Director of GCHQ - Francis Richards, head of the UK's "signals intelligence establishment", an intelligence agency, which reports to the Foreign Secretary.<br />- Director of SIS (aka MI6) - Sir Richard Dearlove, identified as 'C' in the meeting minutes, heads the UK's foreign intelligence service<br /> - Chief of the Defence Staff - Admiral Sir Michael Boyce<br /> - Chief of Staff - Jonathan Powell<br /> - Head of Strategy - Alastair Campbell<br /> - Director of Political & Govt Relations - Sally Morgan</p> <p>We will be posting a revised version of this list with descriptions of the various roles and their US equivalents soon.<br /> <br />Though it is sometimes difficult to equate a given official to his or her US counterpart, it's clear that this was a meeting at the highest level within the UK government.</p> <p>Attendees included three members of the Cabinet (Prime Minister Blair, the Defence Secretary and the Foreign Secretary), the nation's most senior bureaucrat (the Cabinet Secretary), three out of the four top people from the UK intelligence community (the JIC Chair and the heads of MI6 and GCHQ), the head of the armed forces and four of the innermost circle of the PM's political advisors.</p> <p>The relatively junior level of the author bears no relevance to the contents, which describe the thinking and opinions of the principals.</p> </div>Erniehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15685494236831422630noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6189841.post-1118081450035640142005-06-06T13:10:00.000-05:002005-06-06T13:10:50.040-05:00Dear Red States:<div>Dear Red States,<br /><br />We're ticked off at the way you've treated California, and we've decided we're leaving. We intend to form our own country, and we're taking the other Blue States with us. In case you aren't aware, that includes Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois and all the Northeast. </div> <div><br />We believe this split will be beneficial to the nation, and especially to the people of the new country of New California.<br /><br />To sum up briefly: You get Texas, Oklahoma and all the slave states. We get stem cell research and the best beaches. We get Elliot Spitzer. You get Ken Lay. We get the Statue of Liberty. You get OpryLand. We get Intel and Microsoft. You get WorldCom. We get Harvard. You get Ole' Miss. We get 85 percent of America's venture capital and entrepreneurs. You get<br />Alabama. We get two-thirds of the tax revenue, you get to make the red states pay their fair share. Since our aggregate divorce rate is 22 percent lower than the Christian Coalition's, we get a bunch of happy families. You get a bunch of single moms. Please be aware that Nuevo California will be pro-choice and anti-war, and we're going to want all our citizens back from Iraq at once. If you need people to fight, ask your evangelicals. They have kids they're apparently willing to sen d to their deaths for no purpose, and they don't care if you don't show pictures of their children's caskets coming home. We do wish you success in Iraq, and hope that the WMDs turn up, but we're not willing to spend our resources in Bush's Quagmire.<br /><br />With the Blue States in hand, we will have firm control of 80 percent of the country's fresh water, more than 90 percent of the pineapple and lettuce, 92 percent of the nation's fresh fruit, 95 percent of America's quality wines (you can serve French wines at state dinners) 90 percent of all cheese, 90 percent of the high tech industry, most of the U.S. low-sulfur coal,<br />all living redwoods, sequoias and condors, all the Ivy and Seven Sister schools, plus Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Cal Tech and MIT.<br /><br />With the Red States, on the other hand, you will have to cope with 88 percent of all obese Americans (and their projected health care costs), 92 percent of all U.S. mosquitoes, nearly 100 percent of the tornadoes, 90 percen t of the hurricanes, 99 percent of all Southern Baptists, virtually 100 percent of all televangelists, Rush Limbaugh, Bob Jones University, Clemson and the University of Georgia. We get Hollywood and Yosemite, thank you.<br /><br />Additionally, 38 percent of those in the Red states believe Jonah was actually swallowed by a whale, 62 percent believe life is sacred unless we're discussing the death penalty or gun laws, 44 percent say that evolution is only a theory, 53 percent that Saddam was involved in 9/11 <br />and 61 percent of you crazy bastards believe you are people with higher morals then we lefties.</div> <div><br />By the way, we're taking the good pot, too. You can have that dirt weed they grow in Mexico.<br /><br />Sincerely,<br /><br />Author Unknown in New California.<br /><br />_______<br />Sent via email..<br /></div>Erniehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15685494236831422630noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6189841.post-1118076884391637792005-06-06T11:53:00.000-05:002005-06-06T11:54:44.396-05:00I need to get out more...This doesn't include Canada, where I've been to Quebec, Toronto, Montreal, Nova Scotia and a couple of others...<br /><br /><img src="http://www.world66.com/myworld66/visitedStates/statemap?visited=ALAZARCACTDCDEFLGAILINKYLAMEMDMAMIMNMSNVNHNJNMNYNCOHOKORPARISCTNTXVTVAWAWVWI" /><br/><br /><a href="http://www.world66.com/myworld66">create your own personalized map of the USA</a><br /> or check out our<a href="http://www.world66.com/northamerica/unitedstates/california">California travel guide</a>Erniehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15685494236831422630noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6189841.post-1117024815156222902005-05-25T07:26:00.000-05:002005-05-25T07:40:15.163-05:00Life: The Zero-Sum GameOh, but what a game it is, eh?<br /><br />IMO, life must be a zero sum game. You're born at the beginning and dead at the end. As far as I can tell, that makes it a zero-sum game. What is the point of life then? Simple: Make the world a better place when you die than it was when you were born.<br /><br />For me, that means raising a kid who'll grow up to be a decent human being, and possibly change the world in a positive way. Extending a hand when it's needed to my fellow man. Make a positive mark in the world beyond a headstone.<br /><br />It would be nice to win the lottery (I think). It would be nice to run a multi-million dollar company (I think). It would be nice to live in a palatial mansion on 70 acres in La Jolla, California (I think). None of it is necessary.<br /><br />It IS nice to have a loving wife, a brilliant kid, a stable home (rented), food on the table when I need it, a decent job and a positive outlook on life. That is all I really want or need.<br /><br />Last night, while driving to pick up dinner, I witnessed an accident right in front of me. It was pretty brutal, a Ford Expedition vs. Honda Accord. The Accord was struck just behind the passenger-side door, and spun around a couple of times before coming to rest against a curb. So I stopped to help. I have first-aid gear in my car.<br /><br />When I approached the Ford (another bystander was attending to the Accord, which was closer to them), it was obvious that the driver (a 30-something woman) was concious, aware and not crtically injured, so I went to the back, where I could see two children. I opened the door and said "Hi! Is everyone okay? My name is Ernie, and I'll help you if I can." The two kids were a 6-yr old boy and a 9-yr old girl. Luckily, nobody was seriously hurt, and everyone was wearing their seatbelts. Police arrived, EMS arrived, statements were taken etc, and I went on my way. Why am I telling you all of this? It's because of what happened in the middle of it all.<br /><br />The mother of these two children, while I was inspecting them, calming them down and generally making sure of their well-being, stopped and said "Thank you <span style="font-style: italic;">so</span> much for stopping to help." She was under the impression that I might have driven away, not knowing if they were okay, not knowing if I could have helped. That just stopped me dead. I can't imagine living my life that way. Do you?<br /><br />These are the things that make me happy. I got nothing out of stopping and helping except the feeling that I might have made a difference to this Mom and her two very scared children. I like doing that, and I'll continue to do that because that's what makes life worth living.<br /><br />But I'll still play the lottery.Erniehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15685494236831422630noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6189841.post-1115230927154920492005-05-04T12:17:00.000-05:002005-05-04T13:22:07.206-05:0027 ways to be a good Republican...In response to <a href="http://www.fortliberty.org/patriotic-humor/ways-to-be-a-good-democrat.shtml">this</a> (22 ways to be a good Democrat)<br /><br /><ol><li> You have to be against a woman’s right to choose, but support the murder of thousands by air strike.</li><li>You have to believe that a shopping mall is better than a backyard, as long as it’s not YOUR backyard.</li><li>You have to believe that guns in the hands of drug dealers and gang-bangers are less of a threat than countries that have never fired a weapon at Americans here in America.</li><li>You have to believe that there were no airlines before Federal funding, tax breaks and kickbacks.</li><li>You have to believe that global temperatures are more permanently affected by natural changes in the earth's climate than billions of tons of waste gasses pumped into the atmosphere by coal and natural gas power plants.</li><li>You have to believe that the sex of someone else’s spouse is actually your business, but your adultery isn’t anyone else’s business.</li><li>You have to believe that the AIDS epidemic cannot be slowed with the assistance of the Federal government.</li><li>You have to believe that the teacher who can't teach 4th-graders how to read is doing a great job.</li><li>You have to believe that hunters care about nature because the 10-point rack on the wall shows their commitment to it.</li><li>You have to believe that things magically happen even if you have no self-esteem.</li><li>You have to believe that Mel Gibson made The Passion Of The Christ because Christ died for our sins and not to gain notoriety.</li><li>You have to believe the ACLU is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, but the NRA is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.</li><li>You have to believe that taxes are too high and the deficit, trade gap and unemployment levels are too low.</li><li>You have to believe that Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, John F. Kennedy, and Thomas Edison.</li><li>You have to believe that standardized tests are not racist, but racial quotas and set-asides are.</li><li>You have to believe that George W. Bush is normal and is a smart, well-spoken person with no hidden agendas.</li><li>You have to believe that a representative democratic republic will work for everyone, regardless of belief, history or ideology and that it’s okay to kill a considerable percentage of them to bring it to them.</li><li>You have to believe that a President having consensual sex with another adult is far worse than a President who’s eager to send our children off to get killed in a war that isn’t a war to find weapons that didn’t exist.</li><li>You have to believe that Christmas and Easter were originally Christian holidays and not co-opted seasonal festivals of Pagans.</li><li>You have to believe that changing the rules of the Senate and the Ethics Committee to protect Republican Senators is somehow in the best interest to the United States.</li><li>You have to believe that we actually went to war in Iraq to find WMDs because they were a clear and present threat to the United States.</li><li>You have to believe that Republican backed special interest groups didn't finance The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, they got the idea and money on their own.</li><li>You have to believe Bill Clinton getting a blowjob in the Oval Office is appalling, but Newt Gingrich serving his wife with divorce papers on her deathbed is A-OK.</li><li>You have to believe in defending the sanctity of marriage except when it’s a husband trying to fulfill his wife’s wish in ending her life.</li><li>You have to feel that marriage is sacrosanct and inviolate while ignoring the fact that 61% of Catholics get divorced and another 7% get their marriages annulled.</li><li>You have to believe that what John Kerry did 30 years ago is important, but what George W. Bush didn't do 30 years ago isn't.</li><li>You have to believe that this message was authored by a left-wing pinko socialist bleeding heart liberal.</li></ol><p>I could go on and on and on. That's why I go to a help group: On And On Anon. Funny thing is, I'm not really a Democrat.</p>Erniehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15685494236831422630noreply@blogger.com4