Why all non-Republican candidates are doomed to fail on November 7th...

This insight, from some huckleberry who penned this letter to the editor in the September 19th issue of the News-Gazette:

"We love George W. Bush. May I please explain why most Democrats and so many people hate him. We are engaged in a great spiritual battle. We are at war, good versus evil. God against Satan. Christians against the fallen world.

George W. Bush is a born-again Christian. He is a great man of God. He will be remembered in history as one of our greatest presidents.

Unbelievers, people without God, do not understand. They do not have Jesus. They do not have the power of the Holy Spirit. They are void of understanding. Their lost condition and lack of knowledge manifest as hatred toward our great president."

I don't think that this letter, if intended to be satirical and/or to cause people to cringe at such a black and white assessment of either party, is going to work because I'm certain that there are quite a few people out there who believe the above to be true. A member of my family told me before the '04 elections that he couldn't possibly vote for a Democrat (though acknowledging the massive amount of civilian deaths in Iraq) because he "couldn't stand in front of Jesus with a clear conscience for having allowed a gay marriage amendment to pass or to keep abortion legal." This, from a man who knows no gay men or women nor has any relative who's ever opted for (or would ever opt for) an abortion. Try to reason with a person who can stand to see tens of thousands slaughtered but thinks that Jesus is going to send him down the black chute for not physically assaulting two men or women for kissing in public. This seems to be a typical attitude among Christian fundamentalists: Not in my back yard, and by "my back yard" I mean your back yard, your bedroom, your doctor's office, county, state, and nation--and to hell with any non-Christians who might happen to get in the way of our bullets. It's a sad thing to consider that many, many people are too stupid to realize, admit, or care that the goal of their Godly leaders is to turn the nation into a theocracy while feeding stock lines about "Islamo-fascism" as they continue to kiss the hind ends of the ruling class of the wealthiest Middle Eastern theocracy. The hands of one of these "great (men) of God" might be cupped around your ear as they whisper sweet nothings about your heavenly rewards for waging a Christian holy war, but the other will be in your pants, desparately digging for your wallet.

I may be in the minority on this, but I think I'll chose to continue to blindly believe in a loving God. Pardon me for possibly oversimplifying, but how many gay marriages are worth the life of 30,000 Iraqi civilians in God's eyes, do you suppose?

This might be worth a chuckle…

…if it had happened in Mayberry in 1950, instead of happening today in New York state. New York (along with approximately 29 other states, according to an article in the NY Times) is apparently full of town "justices" with sub-high school educations, and a serious lack of the knowledge needed in order to determine right from wrong.

A snippet, from today's New York Times:

(snip)
An Essex County town justice, Richard H. Rock, jailed two 16-year-olds overnight without a trial, saying he wanted "to teach them a lesson." They had been accused of spitting at two other people and charged with harassment. Then he sent them back for 10 more days, the commission said, without ever advising them they had a right to a lawyer.

In 2001, the commission punished him and Justice Maclaughlin with censure, the most serious penalty short of removal from the bench. Justice Maclaughlin is now in his 11th year in office. Justice Rock is in his 10th.

In Alexandria Bay, where Justice Pennington presided at a metal desk in a tiny room inside the police building, a quarter-century in office did not seem to deepen his understanding of his role. Just three days after he took home the 17-year-old girl, another case raised fresh questions about his familiarity with the law, or even the world outside his court.

Eeric D. Bailey, a 21-year-old black soldier from nearby Fort Drum, was facing a disorderly conduct charge after a tussle with a white bar bouncer. Sitting three feet from Mr. Bailey, the bouncer identified him as "that colored man." Mr. Bailey’s jaw dropped.

The soldier, who did not have a lawyer, told the judge that the term was offensive. But Justice Pennington said that while certain other words were racist, "colored" was not. "For years we had no colored people here," he said.

The commission had heard worse. After arraigning three black defendants arrested in a college disturbance in 1994, a justice in the Finger Lakes region said in court, "Oh, it’s been a rough day — all those blacks in here." A few years before that, a Catskill justice reminisced in court that it was safe for young women to walk around "before the blacks and Puerto Ricans moved here."

In an interview, Justice Pennington said the commission had treated him unfairly. But he may not have helped his case when he told the commission that "colored" was an acceptable description.

"I mean, to me," he testified, "colored doesn’t preferably mean black. It could be an Indian, who’s red. It could be Chinese, who’s considered yellow."
(snip)

(Link lifted from www.thismodernworld.com)

Just in case...

In order to keep my brain intact, I'm going to try to keep from posting politically until after the November elections. Shouldn't be too difficult; I've posted twice since May, after all.

Anyhoo, in case the GOP manages to maintain their lock on both the House and Senate in November following what will probably be the last free elections held in the U.S., let me just say this: I will welcome our fair and benevolent Republican overlords!

"I can’t stands no more!" (apologies to The Simpson’s parody of Popeye)...

WARNING! SNOBBY POLITICAL STATEMENTS AHEAD!

Have you noticed the "If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention" bumper stickers? Well, I honestly can’t understand why I can’t pop my head out the window at any time of the day or night to hear flat-out screaming for the impeachment of George W., or (at the least) the takeover of the house and senate this November by non-Republicans.

I haven’t the time or the space to go into the details about injustices which have been readily accessible to all humans willing to stray a bit from the inaccuracies that consistently emanate from the Fox News, Anne Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, etc. websites. Lately, though, I've started to feel as though the administration is personally insulting my intelligence. From the AP:

Bush said the Geneva Convention's ban was "very vague" and required clarification. "What does that mean, 'outrages upon human dignity?' That's a statement that is wide open to interpretation."

I’ll spare you any stupid remarks that statement is begging for, and just say this: Your President, a grown adult, is fighting for the United States’ right to torture whomever it feels like torturing, based on the tiniest shred of "evidence" (hearsay from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, for example). There are studies that show that information extracted under duress is not generally reliable. If, for example, I wired your nipples up to a car battery and asked you to confess that you're Donald Rumsfeld's love child, what would you most likely say? This (torture, and the mindset of those who want to torture), people, is WRONG. Exhibit B, from the White House website last week:

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Earlier this week, you told a group of journalists that you thought the idea of sending special forces to Pakistan to hunt down bin Laden was a strategy that would not work.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
Q Now, recently you've also --
THE PRESIDENT: Because, first of all, Pakistan is a sovereign nation.
Q Well, recently you've also described bin Laden as a sort of modern day Hitler or Mussolini. And I'm wondering why, if you can explain why you think it's a bad idea to send more resources to hunt down bin Laden, wherever he is?
THE PRESIDENT: We are, Richard. Thank you. Thanks for asking the question. They were asking me about somebody's report, well, special forces here -- Pakistan -- if he is in Pakistan, as this person thought he might be, who is asking the question -- Pakistan is a sovereign nation. In order for us to send thousands of troops into a sovereign nation, we've got to be invited by the government of Pakistan.

Do I even need to explain to anyone what is WRONG with that statement?

If you are a resident of Illinois, it behooves you to write to Senators Dick Durbin (http://durbin.senate.gov/contact.cfm) and Barack Obama (http://obama.senate.gov/contact/) and tell them how you, as constituents, feel about the excesses and abuses of power perpetrated by the Bush Administration. No matter how pissed off you feel about the current regime (or how happy you might feel about the prospect of legalized torture, even—I won’t ask) you need to contact these people by e-mail, U.S. Mail, or telephone because NO ONE—not Michael Moore, not Jon Stewart, not Ben from True Majority, not Al Franken--- is speaking for or can speak for YOU.

I won’t tell anyone what to write, although I will suggest this: Tell them that no matter what comprimises are reached with the GOP and the President during the remainder of this administration, you do not want language installed that will grant immunity from prosecution to anyone involved in abuses of power and authority in the past.