604

As I am too well aware, men of science are sometimes hindered in their pursuits by powerful men of faith. Human progress is thus kept in check until these men of faith finally step out of its way.

In America today, one such conflict between science and faith is over stem cell research. This new science could very well lead to cures for a wide range of dread diseases and even paralyzing injuries. A truly remarkable prospect. Yet there are those who condemn this research as immoral and a sin against God, because harvesting stem cells requires the destruction of a human embryo — a developing human being.

But physician and businessman Tom Okarma, who heads a company that does privately funded stem cell research, argues from a more practical perspective:

For me and for those of us in the field who are knowledgeable about these cells, the ethical debate has a clear answer. A 3-day-old frozen embryo is not a thinking, feeling person. We may be able to impact many thousands of patients with cells made from a single embryo that would have been otherwise destroyed because it was rejected for achieving pregnancy — for us there is no moral dilemma here.

Standing in the way of medical breakthroughs that can save or greatly improve the lives of human beings — that is what is immoral here. Don't let your faith overrule your compassion and common sense. Step aside and let progress advance.

Posted on 07/31/05 by Galileo Galilei | Link | Comments?

I admit it. I was wrong. We didn't bury you, or even outlast you. You outlasted us.

But the big question, comrade, is this: By how much?

I'm not just talking about the obvious danger signs. Iraq, which is proving as costly to you as Afghanistan was to us. Resentment over a top-heavy economic system where CEOs and other high-ranking corporate officers are paid hundreds of times what the average worker is paid. A health system that excludes many millions of citizens.

All of that is hurting you. But I am also talking about something deeper, something that truly shocked me, even though I have seen you at your worst moments over many decades.

The much celebrated American "know-how" appears to be in decline. That is the way it looks to me, based on recent news about your space shuttle.

I remember a time when America's space program was universally respected for its bright, talented engineers, scientists, and technicians, its insistence on absolute precision in every detail, large and small, and its uncompromising demand for safety.

Today, the impression is that America is getting sloppy.

On July 13th, NASA wisely aborted the launch of the shuttle Discovery because one of its four fuel sensors malfunctioned.

Two weeks later, Discovery was launched safely into orbit. But in the days before the launch, NASA was saying the unthinkable — they planned to go ahead with the re-scheduled launch even if the fuel sensor problem wasn't solved.

What?

And when Discovery did launch, a piece of foam insulation broke away from one of the fuel tanks and hit the shuttle, bringing back terrible images of the shuttle Columbia burning up on re-entry in 2003. Wasn't two and a half years and a billion U.S. dollars enough to fix that problem?

And now you have grounded the shuttle fleet until you can keep pieces of the craft from falling off during launch. Again, grounding the fleet is a wise and responsible decision, and it is what I have come to expect from America. But I wonder how that makes those seven astronauts up there feel.

If it turns out that Discovery was damaged by falling debris during launch, making re-entry risky, how do you plan to get those seven brave souls home if your shuttle fleet is grounded?

Could be, comrades, you will have to take advantage of some good old-fashioned Russian know-how to get them home — on the Russian-made Soyuz spacecraft.

So let me rephrase what I said almost 50 years ago: We will rescue you.

Wouldn't you just hate that?

Posted on 07/30/05 by Nikita Khrushchev | Link | Comments?

• Gas cost 31 cents, and a first class stamp cost 4 cents.

• Number One on the hit parade included such songs as The Peppermint Twist, The Duke of Earl, He's a Rebel, and Monster Mash.

• The Berlin Wall was built the year before, and was not to crumble for almost 30 more years.

• Ringo Starr signed on as the Beatles' new drummer.

• John Glenn became the first American to orbit the earth.

• Fins were on their way down, and hemlines were on their way up.

• Walter Cronkite began his reign at the CBS News anchor desk.

• Anne Bancroft won an academy award for The Miracle Worker.

• Her portrayal of Mrs. Robinson in The Graduate was still six years away.

• Johnny Carson began his decades-long run as Tonight Show host.

• Rachel Carson published Silent Spring.

• Mood rings and leisure suits were not to be invented for well over a decade.

• And the Red Sox were still over four decades away from winning their next World Series.

The year was 1962. If you remember that year, you are very, very different today than you were then. And so is America. And so is the world.

We've had eight presidential administrations since JFK's in 1962, and 22 Congresses. We fought several major and minor wars. We watched the Soviet Union break apart and the European Union come together.

But after all those years and all that change, two things, at least, are still firmly in place: the 1962 economic embargo of Cuba, and the 46-year presidency of Fidel Castro — whose government the embargo was intended to destroy.

Two recent events have put what deserves to be ancient history back in the news:

• The president of a U.S. firm accused of violating the embargo ended a five-year legal nightmare by agreeing to a plea bargain. He and two "accomplices" have now each been fined $10,000 and have been sentenced to a year's probation. The company was also fined $250,000.

  Their crime — selling water purifying equipment to Cuba.

  In 2002, after the conviction of one of the men, Cuban Foreign Minister Felipe Perez Roque couldn't contain his sarcasm:

  They have found him guilty in the United States, put him on trial, for selling Cuba resins to purify the water which goes to our schools and homes, and now he could face a sentence of up to 205 years in prison...

  I don't know what sort of dangerous or strategic material this is. I don't know if you can maybe make a nuclear missile from it.

• A group called the Pastors for Peace has just delivered more than 120 tons of humanitarian aid to Cuba. The group has done so annually, in defiance of the U.S. embargo, for the last 16 years. The Americans in the group risk arrest and heavy fines when they return to the U.S.

  When the group's caravan of buses, trucks, and other vehicles attempted to cross the U.S. border into Mexico, they were stopped by a small army of U.S. Customs agents. The agents spent hours sifting through the donated goods, and confiscated 43 boxes of computer equipment and other electronics.

  Two U.S. Representatives, Charles Rangel and Jose Serrano, appealed to Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez to release the confiscated equipment. Rangle also had this to say:

  If the Bush administration does not wish to help the people of Cuba, I appeal to them to get out of the way...Let others prove the compassion that the administration has often claimed as its own.

Castro can't live forever. And when he dies, my advice is that we declare his death a victory for the embargo, congratulate ourselves on our great success, and then stop inflicting hardships upon the citizens of that small island nation.

Posted on 07/29/05 by Henry David Hernandez | Link | Comments?

In 1996, 18-year-old Daryl Atkins and an accomplice robbed and murdered Eric Nesbitt for $260. The accomplice cut a deal in return for a life sentence, and testified against Atkins at trial. Atkins was convicted in 1998.

Atkins' defense team argued that Atkins should not suffer the death penalty because of his mental deficiencies — an argument supported by expert testimony that Atkins' IQ was a mere 59, ranking him with the lowest one percent of Americans. But the jury was unimpressed with the defense's plea for Atkins' life and sentenced him to die.

In 2002, the Supreme Court ruled that Atkins' death sentence was unconstitutional because of his profound learning impairment. In Virginia, where the crime occurred, an IQ of 70 or below is considered an indication of a serious learning disability.

But in two more recent IQ tests, Atkins scored a lofty 74 and 76 — still closer to the IQ of an amoeba than a Mensa member, but apparently bright enough to merit execution in the state of Virginia. The jury that will decide whether Atkins lives or dies is currently being selected.

Which brings me to President Bush. The latest buzz in the hallways of the White House is that Karl Rove, the president's longtime friend and adviser, recently took the president aside and gave him some advice:

Mr. President, do you remember when I told you about the Daryl Atkins trial in Virginia? It turns out he may be executed after all. Now, sir, if you were smart — let me rephrase that. It's in your best interests to intervene on Atkins' behalf. Say publicly that a few IQ points above or below an arbitrary cutoff number of 70 is meaningless. Someone who obviously has the IQ of a rock — in so many words — should not have to suffer the ultimate punishment.

Yes, sir, I'm coming to the part about your best interests. It's always a good idea to prepare for the worst possible outcomes. And between you, me, and Rutherford B. Hayes' desk, our reasons for invading Iraq were completely bogus. That means you could be impeached. And more than a few leftist wingnuts actually want you jailed.

So appealing for mercy for poor, mentally deficient Mr. Atkins would establish a precedent for — well, if I may be so bold, sir — for your own defense, if that becomes necessary.

Are you following me, sir? No, of course not. And that is exactly why this defense is guaranteed to work.

After talking to numerous White House insiders, I have determined without any doubt whatsoever that this malicious rumor is completely unfounded.

Besides, if President Bush's intelligence quotient is really as low as it often appears to be, what does that say about the 60 million of us who voted him to a second term?

Posted on 07/26/05 by Deep Post | Link | Comments?

How could they do this to me?

Me.

Ok, I know the Army and National Guard and other branches of the military are having problems getting young men and women to sign up. Wartime is not exactly the best time to keep missing your recruitment goals by 20, 30, 40 percent.

I sympathize. I really do. Something needs to be done. A draft would never work. You might as well bring every soldier home from Iraq right now. If there was a draft, everyone would be out protesting this war. The combined might of the United States Armed Forces would be needed right here at home, just to protect the government from the hordes of angry mommies and daddies of draft-age kids.

But can they really be considering this? Raising the enlistment age for active duty? This affects me.

I admit it. Now and then I've allowed myself to be carried away a little bit by waves of patriotic fervor. And during those times I might have been moved to say I wish I was young enough to participate in the noble cause of spreading liberty in Iraq — but alas, I am over the allowable enlistment age.

And now the bastards are talking about extending the damn age.

For some reason, people seem to be going out of their way to tell me about the extension. They just can't wait to tell me how happy they are for me, that I might soon be getting my wish to enlist for active duty in Iraq.

Raising the enlistment age is exactly the wrong way to get more bodies into the armed forces. They ought to be lowering the allowable age, not raising it. Even the Taliban is smart enough to know that.

The Taliban is having recruitment problems, just like we are. It's not easy convincing people to take on the World's Only Superpower when they have nothing to fight with but a leftover World War I bolt-action rifle and a slingshot. The older Afghans — those who are lucky enough to still be alive — know better. But 14, 15, 16 year old kids are a different story. You can get a kid that age to believe anything.

If the Pentagon is serious about putting more boots on the ground, my advice is to deploy a recruiting team in every junior high school in the country.

And leave us older folks be. We're more trouble than we're worth. When our lives are put on the line, we're going to want to know why.

Posted on 07/24/05 by Farleigh B. Fox | Link | Comments?

Yes.

For decades, the abortion debate in the United States has been rooted in, if I may say so myself, Orwellian name games. Who isn't both pro-choice and pro-life?

Thought corrupting language. Language corrupting thought.

Frankly, the proponents of legalized abortion do their cause harm by their reluctance to use a plain-truth label for their viewpoint. Legalized abortion. If you support it, say it.

People who speak plainly are not afraid of the truth. That is why I rooted for Howard Dean in the spectator sport known as the American Presidential Election. Howard Dean is, at the very least, a refreshingly honest, frank, plain-spoken man.

So it was disheartening to watch Dean, in his capacity as chairman of the Democratic National Committee, resorting to doublethink on the question of abortion:

I think we need to talk about [abortion] differently...

We do have to have a big tent. I do think we need to welcome pro-life Democrats into this party...

Still...I think that we must be absolutely firm in being the party of individual freedom and personal freedom, which means that in the end the government doesn't get to decide, we do.

Mr. Dean doesn't explain how he plans to talk about legalized abortion "differently," so as to entice those who oppose legalized abortion into a party that is "absolutely firm" in its support of legalized abortion. Such a feat cannot be accomplished except through doublethink. Ultimately, it will prove self-defeating.

As Tom DeLay spokesman Kevin Madden observed:

Howard Dean's rants are a perfect example of why the American people have lost faith in the national Democratic party.

No doubt. And in politics in general.

Posted on 07/22/05 by George Orwell | Link | Comments?

When White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan heard that NBC News correspondent Andrea Mitchell was dragged roughly out of a room for asking impertinent questions to Sudanese President Omar el-Bashir, McClellan's face took on a dreamy, far-off expression, and he whispered in wonder — Gee, you can do that?

Ok, so there's (probably) no truth to that rumor.

Nor is there any truth to the Jon Stewart quip over the White House press corps' unusually persistent questioning of McClellan about the Valerie Plame leak: We've secretly replaced the White House press corps with actual reporters.

Believe me, that hasn't happened. It's the same press corps asking the same polite questions, and all the while continuing to ignore the same 800-pound gorilla sitting in the back row.

In Sudan, Mitchell was not afraid to point a finger directly at another 800-pound gorilla by asking the Sudanese president tough questions about the killings in Darfur:

"Can you tell us why the violence is continuing?"

"Can you tell us why the government is supporting the militias?"

"Why should Americans believe your promises?"

After the incident, Mitchell said, "It makes me even more determined when dictators and alleged war criminals are not held to account."

We can only hope that Mitchell brings that same determination to President Bush's next press conference. She wouldn't even have to change the wording of her questions very much.

Posted on 07/21/05 by Henry David Hernandez | Link | Comments?

He is a man to be reckoned with.

In the weeks and months before the Iraq war, when the administration was filtering and coaxing the intelligence reports it needed to "fix the facts" that justified the invasion, one man had the courage to stand up for the truth — Joseph Wilson.

In 2002, Wilson, a former obscure American diplomat who had retired to public life, was sent on a secret mission for the CIA to Niger to find evidence that Saddam Hussein was trying to buy uranium for nuclear weapons. Wilson found no such evidence and filed a report that said so.

In his 2003 State of the Union address, President Bush claimed just the opposite of what Wilson had reported.

The controversy over Bush's claim continued into the summer. Finally Wilson published an article in the New York Times that flatly contradicted Bush's claim. The White House was forced to backpeddle.

And then the Wilson-bashing began, and it continues to this day.

It took courage and character for Wilson to tell the administration what it didn't want to hear in the months before the war. If others shared that same courage and character — Colin Powell and George Tenent immediately come to mind — maybe there would be no war.

There's a lot to be said for being a team player. There's a lot more to be said for the truth.

Posted on 07/19/05 by Henry David Hernandez | Link | Comments?

The New York Times Pulitzer Prize winning reporter Judith Miller is sitting in jail for refusing to turn over her notes and name her source for a story she never even wrote.

To many, that makes Miller a modern-day hero, a martyr to the cause of a free American press and the public's right to know.

Bob Woodward was so moved by Miller's willingness to put her journalistic ethics above her freedom that he offered to serve some of her jail time.

But not everyone agrees that Miller "represents the best of what journalism is supposed to be."

Some, like Justin Raimondo at antiwar.com, believe that Miller is nothing more than an administration shill who helped misinform the public about the need to invade Iraq. In fact, Raimondo suggests that Miller's willingness to go to jail was not to protect her source, but to protect herself:

Is she a martyr to the First Amendment, or part of a vicious cabal that is frantically trying to cover up crimes...

Ms. Miller had a hand in much of the [misinformation about Iraq's WMDs]: she wasn't reporting on it so much as she was a participant, a key link in the network of liars, forgers, and character assassins who corrupted U.S. intelligence-gathering capabilities, misled the public, and betrayed the country while they broke the law.

The jury is still out on why she chose to go to jail, and we probably will never know for sure. But we do know that, intentionally or not, she wrote stories about Iraq's WMDs that were completely false, and gave those stories the credibility and weight of the New York Times.

Raimondo may go too far when he says that Miller's four-month sentence is therefore not nearly harsh enough:

If it were up to me, her jail term would be measured in years, not months. In addition, I would compel her to turn over the proceeds from her bestselling books and the rest of her assets to the families of those killed and injured in a war her propagandistic "reporting" did so much to bring about.

Then again, maybe not.

Posted on 07/18/05 by Henry David Hernandez | Link | Comments?

My July 12th post tried to point out that the media's mania over Karl Rove (What Did the Deputy Chief of Staff Know and When Did He Know It?) amounted to taking our collective eye off the ball. But Frank Rich rivets our attention squarely back where it belongs with his terrific piece in today's New York Times.

This case is about Iraq, not Niger. The real victims are the American people, not the Wilsons. The real culprit - the big enchilada, to borrow a 1973 John Ehrlichman phrase from the Nixon tapes - is not Mr. Rove but the gang that sent American sons and daughters to war on trumped-up grounds and in so doing diverted finite resources, human and otherwise, from fighting the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11. That's why the stakes are so high: this scandal is about the unmasking of an ill-conceived war, not the unmasking of a C.I.A. operative who posed for Vanity Fair.

Posted on 07/17/05 by Henry David Hernandez | Link | Comments?

Ann Coulter is an American treasure.

Once again, my girl Ann has proven she deserves high praise with this article I'm holding right here in my hand — her courageous expose of Joseph "Clown" Wilson.

For days, the entire country has been abuzz with speculation about a true tempest in a teapot — who outed Valerie Plame?

Oh, dear. Was it Karl Rove? Did Rove break the law? Could he have committed treason? Shouldn't he be fired? Tarred and feathered? Boiled in oil?

Please.

All this hysteria was foisted upon us by secret, left-leaning elements in our country. I have a list of their names right here in my pocket. But my girl Ann saw through all the lies and distortions and media mania, and has revealed the Truth:

The real story about Joseph C. Wilson IV was not that Bush lied about Saddam seeking uranium in Africa; the story was Clown Wilson and his paper-pusher wife, Valerie Plame. By foisting their fantasies of themselves on the country, these two have instigated a massive criminal investigation, the result of which is: The only person who has demonstrably lied and possibly broken the law is Joseph Wilson.

And now you know the facts. Even though the investigation is still ongoing, my perspicacious little truth seeker Ann has already foreseen the result: the only crime committed here is by Clown Wilson himself.

I know that the hopelessly duped among you are wondering how that can be the case. Let my feisty girl Ann explain:

Wilson's report was a hoax. His government bureaucrat wife wanted to get him out of the house, so she sent him on a taxpayer-funded government boondoggle.

There you have it, fellow Americans. The left-concocted Plame game has nothing to do with Iraq or White House retribution against Clown Wilson for refusing to fix the facts. It is simply a case of another housewife who was sick and tired of the sound of her husband's voice.

Time to move on, America. Nothing to see here. Thanks to the insight of the ever-professional Ann Coulter.

Posted on 07/16/05 by Tail Gunner Joe | Link | Comments?

A Google search for overweight, balding red herring does not come up with any references to Karl Rove. Not yet, anyway. But that's the role Rove is currently cast in, at great benefit to his boss, George Bush.

The following paragraph from an AP story on the Rove/Plame connection is typical of the somewhat breathless fascination with the Rove controversy by mainstream media and bloggers alike:

The White House is suddenly facing damaging evidence that it misled the public by insisting for two years that presidential adviser Karl Rove wasn't involved in leaking the identity of a female CIA officer.

Granted, this is an important story that needs to be pursued. But is this the most serious example of how the Bush White House has misled the public?

We started a war over an imminent threat that never was. Over WMDs that never were found. Over Saddam Hussein's connection to 9/11 that never existed. A number of credible sources, from former administration officials to our British allies, alleged that the Bush administration was hell bent on war with Iraq long before 9/11, and was willing to "fix the facts" to make it happen.

Why is there no breathless pursuit of that story? Why is the press hot for Rove while Bush skates on Iraq?

Posted on 07/12/05 by Henry David Hernandez | Link | Comments?

The good news: More and more Americans are realizing that a health care system that currently leaves 45 million of us uninsured is, according to one Ohioan, "immoral, it's foundering and it's on its last legs."

The bad news: More and more individual states are considering instituting their own "single-payer" systems. Some form of a single-payer system is being considered right now in at least 18 state legislatures.

True, our elected representatives in Washington have shown neither the leadership nor the courage to implement a national single-payer health care system. But having potentially 50 state-run "single-payer" systems is no more of a solution that President Clinton's complex, multi-payer proposal back in 1993.

Clinton's proposal was a spectacular failure that effectively silenced any meaningful discussion of national health care reform ever since. It failed because it was too complex and inefficient, just as multiple state-run "single-payer" systems would be.

The good news: A nation-wide single-payer health care system would be in the best interests of America's citizens.

The bad news: It would not be in the best interests of America's insurance industry.

The big question: How long will you keep sending people to Washington who put the insurance industry's interests over yours?

Posted on 07/11/05 by Henry David Hernandez | Link | Comments?

"Very disturbing...."

"We are shocked..."

"A crushing blow..."

It "just took my breath away..."

Who says Americans have lost their capacity for outrage?

What could have elicited such a strong reaction among the usually mild-mannered, too-forgiving citizenry?

1. The invasion of Iraq based on lies and deceit?

2. Abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo?

3. The practice of extraordinary rendition?

4. Jailing Judith Miller over a story written by teflon journalist Robert Novak?

None of the above. These are reactions to the news that the Great American Pastime, baseball, and its genteel cousin, softball, have been eliminated from the 2012 Olympics.

One former Olympian went so far as to say that "They are destroying the dreams of billions of women. Not millions. Billions."

Note to terrorists: Your bloody deeds can move us to "fix the facts" to justify war, to deny our humanity, to place our civil liberties at risk, and to close our eyes to common sense. But if you mess around with our baseball, watch out.

Posted on 07/10/05 by Henry David Hernandez | Link | Comments?

Who says we're not winning the war on terror?

I'm not talking about al Qaeda and Iraq. Those successes speak for themselves.

I'm talking about those insidious, home-grown terrorists whose favorite targets are the weak-minded and the gullible. I'm talking about terrorists who, behind the mask of a trusted face, manipulate their victims day in and day out, until they come to mistrust and even hate America and everything it stands for. Even presidents.

I'm talking about the <expletive-deleted> U.S. media.

The past year has seen great victories on this front in the war on terror. First there was Rathergate, where that smartass Dan Rather and CBS News were forced to admit that they did not authenticate documents alleging that George Bush failed to fulfill his obligations to the Texas Air National Guard. Rathergate effectively ended any further spotlighting of Bush's service record during the 2004 election.

Then Newsweek was shamed into retracting its false claim that guards at Guantanamo had flushed a Koran down a toilet.

Of course, the muddled and manipulated left tried to spin both of these embarrassing admissions by claiming that the stories were essentially true, even if some of the details were inaccurate. As if truth were the be-all and end-all. But those bulldogs in the Bush administration didn't let them get away with it. No, sir.

But the sweetest victory was Time and its reporter Matthew Cooper caving in to pressure and agreeing to reveal what they know about the Plame case. And of course, sending New York Times reporter Judith Miller to the slammer for not caving in. Oh, you've got to love it.

The press is going to think twice now before it sticks its neck out and goes after the administration and its policies. In fact, they're going to think twice about going after anything major or controversial, like the Cleveland Plain Dealer just admitted.

Great work, President Bush. You're winning the war on terror one journalist at a time. That's moxie.

Posted on 07/09/05 by Richard M. Nixon | Link | Comments?

Sometimes things that are obvious to me don't seem so obvous to anybody else. So I just figure I'm the one who's wrong and I keep quiet about it.

Like when I heard about those two reporters who were told to reveal their sources after that poor lady CIA agent's name got leaked to the press. I just thought, well gee, why are they the ones in trouble? They didn't write the story.

It was that nice Robert Novak who wrote the story. If anyone knows who leaked the lady's name, he does. So I said to myself — well, only two things could have happened. Either Mr. Novak gave the authorities the name of the leaker, or he refused. If he gave them the name, the investigation is over. If he wouldn't give them the name, then he's the one who should have to go to jail.

But months and months went by, and I never heard the TV or anyone else say what I was thinking. Finally I got up the nerve to tell Archie my idea. But he just told me to stifle about things I didn't understand.

I guess he's right...I suppose. There must be something I'm missing about all this. I just wish someone would tell me what it is.

Posted on 07/07/05 by Edith Bunker | Link | Comments?

Dear King George,

We hope this addendum to our earlier Declaration of Independence finds you well and in right good humor. And we fervently hope that it reaches you before it is too late.

Upon further reflection, we hereby formally withdraw our earlier Declaration. We wish nothing more than to remain your faithful, obedient subjects.

While the grievances presented in our Declaration are largely truthful, we now recognize that they are of lesser importance than the One Great Truth that outweighs all else — that we are all fellow citizens of Great Britain. How it cut us to the quick when we read your passionate and eloquent challenge to the world: Either you are with us or you are with the Colonists. Oh, how true.

Nay, we shall not allow the disenchanted and the ungrateful among us to foul our loyalty to the Crown. We are true and proud Patriots and wish only to remain so.

To prove this, let these Facts be submitted to a candid world:

• The latest Olde Colonial Poll reveals that most Americans either wish to remain loyal British subjects, or they simply shrugged their shoulders and said, Whatever...

• Newspapers and other purveyors of popular Opinion continue to champion middle-of-the-road viewpoints in all Things.

• Focus groups in twelve Colonies say they have a less favorable Opinion of revolutionaries than of moneylenders, prostitutes, and Satan-worshippers.

• And a focus group in the remaining Colony wants all revolutionaries Hanged.

Conventional wisdom is wisdom nonetheless, and conventional wisdom admonishes us never to stand out, never to stand up, except for God and King.

Therefore, after careful consideration, we no longer wish to extend our necks into the noose — possibly quite literally — by so brashly declaring our independence.

We now wish nothing more than to live quiet lives, to celebrate Moderation, and to enjoy the luxuries of the modern world — the delightful jigsaw puzzle, the delicious, pop-pop-tingle of carbonated water, and the wondrous flush toilet that holds so much promise.

Please accept our sincerest apologies...

Your most Humble and Obedient Servants,
The ever so frightfully sorry Fifty-Six

PS. Please, please remember: We voted for independence before we voted against it.

Poster's note: The above addendum to the Declaration of Independence was lost at sea and never reached the eyes of King George III. The rest is history — whether for good or ill is up to free men and women to determine for themselves.

Posted on 07/04/05 by Thomas Jefferson | Link | Comments?

Thirty-four years is a long time to be dead.

I have a good reason to be in the state I'm in — I'm actually dead. What's your excuse?

Yes, I'm talking to you. My so-called contemporaries. You who used to burn with that intolerant, intolerable 60s idealism. You who were going to change the world. What happened?

It's 2005 — you're in charge now. But I hear the same talk today I heard 34 years ago.

Quagmire.

Stay the course.

Fight them over there so they won't come over here.

Just kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out.

We had to destroy the village/city/country in order to save it.

Vietnam/Iraq. Johnson-Nixon/Bush. Vietnamization/Iraqification. Gulf of Tonkin/WMDs. Love it or leave it/You're either with us or you're with the terrorists.

Different words, same war. Only it's your war now.

You're ballroom days are almost over, baby. Too late, too late, too late...

Posted on 07/03/05 by Jim Morrison | Link | Comments?

Sometimes a cigar is not just a cigar. Sometimes it's a political football, as has been the case with Cuban cigars since 1962.

According to Pierre Salingner, White House press secretary under President Kennedy, JFK called Salinger into his office in 1962 and asked him to get him some Cuban cigars. "Sure," responded Salinger. "How many?" "A thousand," replied Kennedy, "And I need them by tomorrow morning."

The next morning, when Salinger reported to Kennedy that he had acquired 1,200 of the Petit Upmanns that the president was so fond of, Kennedy smiled, took a document out of his desk drawer, and immediately signed it. The document was the order for the Cuban trade sanctions, which remain in effect to this day.

Trade sanctions — on the surface, they seem like a humanitarian way to punish an unfriendly foreign government. Certainly more humanitarian than going to war. But it's hard to imagine that the leaders of those governments suffer any hardship or are denied any luxury as a result of sanctions, any more than JFK was denied his favorite smokes.

Sanctions don't punish a country's leaders. Sanctions punish ordinary citizens. That is the unspoken purpose of sanctions — to make life so unpleasant for the population that the people rise up against their government and overthrow it, essentially doing our dirty work for us.

The morality of sanctions aside, sanctions simply don't work. After 43 years of severe economic sanctions against Cuba, Castro is still fully in control, still delivering his bombastic, 5-hour rants.

Sanctions also didn't work in Iraq. Despite the hundreds of thousands of deaths as a result of U.S.-led sanctions against Iraq in the 1990s — a humanitarian disaster which former Secretary of State Madeline Albright claimed in 1996 was "worth it" — the population did not rise up against Saddam Hussein. In 2003, we had to invade Iraq to remove Hussein from power. And in comparison to the staggering civilian death toll from the sanctions, the invasion and its aftermath look like a humanitarian relief effort.

After 43 years, sanctions continue to punish the Cuban people, but clearly they are not punishing Castro or his government. But after all these years, and in view of the obvious failure of the sanctions to bring down the Castro regime, the U.S. government still can't find the courage to end them.

Posted on 07/02/05 by Henry David Hernandez | Link | Comments?

Dream on, Silvio.

Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi is demanding the "full respect" of the United States, after revealing that U.S. agents had kidnapped a terror suspect from the streets of Milan and flew him to Egypt, where he claims he was tortured.

You can make all the face-saving demands you like, Prime Minister. You can even belt it out in song like your soul sister, Aretha Franklin. But it's all for show and you know it. The Bush administration doesn't even respect its own citizens. It certainly isn't going to respect you.

Posted on 07/01/05 by Henry David Hernandez | Link | Comments?