I’d settle for Addams Family Values

In a move designed to be a smokescreen on issues they can't hope to win in November's elections, House Republicans released this week their "American Values Agenda" – also known as Operation Stop Looking at Iraq: Nothing to See Here, Move Along, Move Along.

Oh, the logic behind the AVA *sounds* peachy keen. "Through this agenda, we will work to protect the faith of our people, the sanctity of life and freedoms outlined by our founding fathers," House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Illinois) said in a statement released by his office.

But what is this American Values Agenda really all about, you ask? Here's a list of legislation the GOP is readying for the campaign stretch run:

The Pledge Protection Act. The Freedom to Display the American Flag Act. The Public Expression of Religion Act. The Marriage Amendment. The Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act. The Human Cloning Prohibition Act. Reform of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. A ban on Internet gambling. Permanent tax relief for families. And the Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act.

That last one sounds pretty reasonable, but you want to know what it really is? According to the Library of Congress, the Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act is a bill that would "amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to prohibit the confiscation of firearms during certain national emergencies."

(You know, because post-Katrina New Orleans was a much safer place with all them redneck wackos – and Sean Penn – running around with shotguns.)

I sure am glad that we have the GOP looking after our most pressing concerns. Now that they're making me aware about how painful it is being an unborn child (???) and protecting my freedom to display the American flag (as long as its not burning), I don't have to worry about all that depressing stuff in the news like government corruption, falling educational standards, shaky national security, spiraling debt and thousands of dead American soldiers. By focusing attention on meaningless legislation and avoiding actual governance, the Republicans are telling us that there are no real worries in our world.

I'd thank God for these douchebags our fearless congressional leaders, but don't want to get into trouble until the Public Expression of Religion Act gets passed into law.

Big fat heads and little blue pills

I wasn't going to touch on the Rush Limbaugh-Viagra story. Really. I just didn't think it was a big deal…and then the douchebag had to open up his yapper and start joking about it.

On his syndicated radio show Tuesday, Rush spoke about his detainment by customs officials when returning from a two-day jaunt in the Dominican Republic :

Customs officials were incredibly nice to me. They just didn't believe me when I said I got the pills at the Clinton Library.

Give me those ribs…LOL.

Does Rush actually think he has the moral high ground here to diffuse the situation (and yes, detainment by US customs officials is – at best – a "situation") by taking a shot at his favorite target? I know a joke loses its humor when it has to be deconstructed, but what the hell does that line even mean?

"Joking" about what happened in customs only opens up Rush to more criticism about the "get out of jail free card" he received earlier this year, when prosecutors let him off the hook for a painkiller addiction and " illegal deception of multiple doctors to get overlapping painkiller prescriptions". I can believe Limbaugh's lawyer's explanation that the pills had been "labeled as being issued to the physician rather than Mr. Limbaugh for privacy purposes." But still, being honest doesn't make your actions legal…or your dumb jokes funny.

Hell, I'd be happy if I never had to think about where Rush stuck his mini-me, or what he has to do to get his member into game shape. And I won't, as some have done, make a bad pun about a "limp" argument (or even "speculate about why Limbaugh might arm himself with a bottle of Viagra for a two-day trip to the Dominican Republic"). Alls I'm saying is this:

When you break a federal law, perhaps it's not best to poke fun at a former President of the United States, who as memory serves, needed no erectile dysfunction aid to get it up for a fatty in a blue dress. Now there was a real man.

How much for that global profiteering in the window?

With its foolish tax cuts and massive, conspiratorial campaigns against the American public, one would think the Bush administration had no real expenditures to worry about. Yeah…uh…not exactly.

The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service released a new report that says costs of fighting the "global war on terror" may be escalating out of control:

... the military is spending about $8 billion a month on Operation Iraqi Freedom and about $1.5 billion on Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan. That is about $2 billion more per month than in fiscal 2005 and about $4 billion more than in fiscal 2004.

It was previously believed that the military's operating costs would sharply drop when major combat operations ended. But the continued pace of anti-insurgency operations, higher fuel costs and continued improvements in force protection gear and body armor in an effort to protect troops against increasingly powerful roadside bomb attacks have altered that mind-set. Wear and tear on military equipment that must be repaired or replaced and costs to train Iraq and Afghanistan security forces are other factors in the increase, the report says.

As usual, Salon puts the mess in proper perspective:

Before the Iraq war began, then White House budget director Mitch Daniels suggested that the total cost would be between $50 billion and $60 billion, and he dismissed an estimate of $200 billion as being at the "upper end of a hypothetical." To his credit, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said before the war that the ultimate cost was "not knowable." That's still a pretty accurate description, especially with the president clinging to a timeline-free, stand-up, stand-down policy. But the CRS says that even assuming substantial troop drawdowns in the near future, the cost of the two wars could exceed $800 billion by 2016.

That's right – EIGHT HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS! But hey, at least no one is profiting from this clusterfuck, right?

Quick Hits – a ‘new republic’ or the same old shit?

Prime Choice – TNR suggests that Al Gore is the Democrats' best bet to take back the White House in 2008. I realize that The New Republic is liberal in the Lieberman sense of the word, but when exactly did it become a shill for the GOP? Seriously, the only thing that would give Karl Rove a bigger hard on than a Gore nomination (and by "bigger" I mean 4 inches instead of 3 ½) would be a Gore-Hillary ticket.

Trash Talk: Why Ann Coulter really is the most hated woman in America – didn't we answer this already? (hint, Pig Latinos call her untkay)

Tony Award – billed as "How one of the Iraq war's most tragic figures got it right", the piece should really have been described as "Tony Blair really isn't Bush's whipping boy – I promise". Really? Let's take a look:

Blair…is articulating a coherent, desperately needed vision for the post-cold-war, post-September 11 world. It is a vision deeply rooted in the liberal tradition--and fundamentally different from that of George W. Bush.

…From America's preaching about human rights while it operates Guantánamo Bay to its demand for tougher nonproliferation rules while it builds a whole new class of nukes (not for deterrence but for potential battlefield use)--this is the basic contradiction at the heart of Bush's foreign policy. And Blair, as gently as he can, has been pointing it out. "There is a hopeless mismatch," he declared last month at Georgetown University, "between the global challenges we face and the global institutions to confront them. After the Second World War, people realized that there needed to be a new international institutional architecture. In this new era, in the early twenty-first century, we need to renew it."

To build that new architecture, Blair proposed empowering the U.N. secretary-general to respond rapidly to emerging humanitarian crises, before the next Bosnia or Darfur spins out of control. He proposed revamping the Security Council to include India, Germany, and Japan--so it better reflects the power realities of today. He urged fundamental reform of the International Monetary Fund. He proposed an international uranium bank that makes peaceful nuclear power easier and nuclear proliferation harder. And he called for a powerful U.N. environmental organization to coordinate dramatic action on global warming.

And then Blair turned the knife. "What's the obstacle" to such efforts, he asked? "It is that, in creating more effective multilateral institutions, individual nations yield up some of their own independence. This is a hard thing to swallow.... But the [alternative is] ... ad hoc coalitions for action that stir massive controversy about legitimacy or paralysis in the face of crisis. No amount of institutional change will ever work unless the most powerful make it work."

That line about illegitimate "ad hoc coalitions": that's Iraq. "Paralysis in the face of crisis": Darfur. And the "most powerful" without whom such efforts will never work: He's talking about the USA.

Hmm…does this mean Blair needs to come off the list? And why the hell was a 5-paragraph, 350-word passage included in a post named "Quick Hits"? Like the number of licks it takes to get to the Tootsie Roll center of a Tootsie Pop, I'm afraid the world may never know.

No Taxation with Ass-Licking Representation

Here's an interesting tidbit to store in your overflowing "Republicans-suck-rich-guys'-cocks" file: the House of Representatives voted on Thursday to exempt multimillion dollar estates from taxation. Yeah, that sounds about par for the course.

What's the debate here? I'm glad you asked:

President Bush and Republicans in Congress have long pressed to abolish the estate tax, contending it is unfair to tax businesses and farms left to the next generation.

"Americans are being taxed almost every moment of their lives. My goodness, when they are dead, do we have to tax them again?" said House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.

Democrats argued that it is more unfair to give millionaires a tax cut while denying thousands of poor workers a higher minimum wage.

"This is the ultimate values debate," said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. "It is morally wrong to do this, especially when we are turning down, rejecting, an increase in the minimum wage."

(She's right you know. Last week, Congress rejected an increase in minimum wage for the seventh time since 1997. You know, because the cost of living hasn't gone up at all since 1997, when $5.15/hour wasn't even enough to survive.)

Salon makes a nice point about the estate tax break afforded to the wealthiest Americans: " If the bill gets through the Senate, it's expected to reduce federal revenues by $283 billion between 2006 and 2016. That's roughly the same as the cost of the Iraq war to date." Ugh. Anyone else just throw up?

The House bill was actually a compromise on a proposal that could have seen the total elimination of the estate tax (funny how the rich benefit on the "compromise" while the rest of us get the business-as-usual routine). The truth is that the John Boehner's of the world don't care about you being taxed when you're dead; they simply want the votes – and more importantly, the contributions – of your now wealthy beneficiaries.

Hey douchebags – if you really want your butt buddies to avoid paying vast estate taxes, encourage them to make a planned gift to one of the thousands of charities in this countries (thankfully, Congress does not yet allow tax-free estate gifts to political/lobbyist nonprofits, only 501(c)3 public charities). You can make the gift and see the value of your generosity while you're still alive. How great is that? Your heirs don't pay tax on the funds AND you get to buy some penance for all the back-stabbing you did to accumulate your fortune. Don't know of a worthy charity? Go to Guidestar, Charity Navigator or support PatRoW's favorite fund.

Of course, John Boehner's approach lets Ri¢hie Ri¢h avoid paying taxes on grandpa's inheritance without subtracting a dime for people in need. God bless America.

Quick Hits: cancer, rape and genocide – Happy Friday everyone!

It's Friday, it's 10:30, it's time to party. Party on, Quick Hits. Party on, Garth.

Condoms Found to Block a Virus Harmful to Women – And it's not AIDS, the clap, herpes or anything sexy like that. Let me get this straight: as long as I can't catch cervical cancer – and I'm fairly confident I carry a life-long invulnerability – does that mean I wasted my oats-sowing years by wearing a bag? Stupid paranoid 1990s…

Cut 'n' run vs. lie 'n' die – it's headlines like this that get me hungry for Shake 'n' Bake. Or Steak 'n' Shake. Or Cheetos…I'm always hungry for Cheetos.

The facts are bad in Iraq. Karl Rove knows that. Dan Bartlett knows that. President Bush knows that. The American people know that. But as the New York Times is reporting this morning, that is not something anyone should admit in an election year:

"People who attended a series of high-level meetings this month between White House and Congressional officials say President Bush's aides argued that it could be a politically fatal mistake for Republicans to walk away from the war in an election year."

A "politically fatal" mistake? What about the actual human fatalities? The loss of human life is collateral damage, but the loss of power is the real tragedy, right?

Joking about rape to lighten the mood – call me old fashioned, but if you're going to allude to a tasteless and offensive joke, isn't it your journalistic duty to report said joke? Not that I find anything particularly engaging about the premise of raping a convent full of nuns, but still, I choose to reserve judgment until I hear the punch line.

Or I get petitioned by NOW. Those bitches dames ladies can work a picket line.

"President O'Reilly" would run Iraq "just like Saddam ran it" – I'll give you a second to clean up the mess you regurgitated after reading the words "President O'Reilly".

Better now? Good.

It seems that Bill O'Reilly is an unlikely fan of the management style of a certain deposed dictator. On his June 19 radio show, O'Reilly declared that if he were the president of Iraq, his constituents would find his approach to be a familiar one:

So because -- what you have here now is a tipping point in history. A tipping point in history. So you have to win the Iraq situation. Now, to me, they're not fighting it hard enough. See, if I'm president, I've got probably another 50-60,000 with orders to shoot on sight anybody violating curfews. Shoot 'em on sight. That's me. President O'Reilly, curfew in Ramadi, 7 o'clock at night. You're on the street, you're dead. I shoot you right between the eyes. OK?

That's how I'd run that country -- just like Saddam ran it. Saddam didn't have explosions. He didn't have bombers, did he? Because if you got out of line, you're dead.

I tried a bunch of comments here, but nothing captured the arrogance, stupidity and irrelevance that is Bill O'Reilly. Well done, douche – you made my point for me.

Not that there’s anything wrong with it…

In response to a bit on last night's Colbert Report, Mrs. PatRoW asked me which man, if a gun were being held to my head, would I choose to have sex with. A ridiculous and logic-defying question? Sure, but that's the way we do pillow talk at casa de PatRoW.

"Why would someone hold a gun to my head and demand that I have sex with another man?" I asked.

"Well maybe," she hypothesized, "he wants to prove that being gay isn't so bad and that straight men have nothing to be scared of."

"So he's holding a gun to my head to prove his point?"

"Yes. After you have sex with a man, he will have proven to you that there's nothing wrong with being gay."

"I don't need the fear of death to prove that to me," I answered. "I just think that if that's his agenda, there are better ways to accomplish it."

"What do you mean?" she asked.

"Well, if gay sex isn't so bad, why put a gun to my head? Wouldn't I forever associate homosexuality with the prospect of a bullet in my brain? No, I think a better approach would be link the act to something positive – you know, like telling me that I could choose any many in the world to have sex with, and if I went through with it, I would get a lifetime supply of ice cream."

"OK," said my obviously frustrated wife. "If a man told you that he would give you a lifetime supply of ice cream if you had sex with any man, who would you choose?"

"That's easy," I answered. "I'd tell the guy that I'm lactose intolerant and can't eat ice cream. I'd thank him for his offer, but have to pass."

I don't share personal stuff all that often, but I thought last night's brilliance deserved the call back. Besides, since I was exiled to the couch after confounding Mrs. PatRoW with my cold, Vulcan logic, I thought I'd give everyone a chance to witness the transformation of master debater into masturbator.

What – you thought I could get through this post without a bad, crude pun? Is this your first day?

Give me a “C”! Give me a “U”! Give me an “N”…

Though I toss around the "douchebag" tag more liberally than Natural Light at a high school party, I rarely brand women with such a distinction. Is it because I'm a sexist? No, it's because " cunt" is a much better description few women truly deserve the label.

Well, that changes today. Queue up the list and add Ann Coulter to the top!

In an e-mail interview with the editor of a conservative website, Coulter was asked to play word association with the names of several prominent political figures:

After harmlessly dismissing former Ambassador Joseph Wilson as the "World's most intensely private exhibitionist," she said of Rep. John Murtha, the hawkish ex-Marine and now antiwar congressman: "The reason soldiers invented 'fragging.'"


Fragging, which became a well-known expression -- and occasional occurrence -- during the Vietnam War, means soldiers attempting to kill their own officers for one reason or another.

I suppose this would have caused more outrage if it were the first time Coulter suggested murdering a public official, but alas, it was not. The woman is such a douche that even conservatives are trying to distance themselves from the popular-by-playing-to-humanity's-worst-common-denominator pundit. Said RedState.org's Mike Krempasky, "I've said before that's its kind of ironic that just about every phrase Stewie from Family Guy uses to describe Lois could easily be applied to Ann Coulter. Well -- once again, Ann proves us right."

I don't like many conservative blah blahs, but this Mike Krempasky is good people. My only complaint is that comparing Coulter to Stewie makes me like her a little bit more. Oh well, if the shoe fits…

And how did the Cunt Queen respond to the latest fall out over her stupidity? "Coulter's latest column on Friday declared, among other things, "that two facts are now universally accepted -- liberals are godless and Hillary's husband is a rapist."

And by "universally accepted", of course, she means inside Klan meetings and Karl Rove's swollen noggin.

Orange you glad I didn’t say banana?

Did you hear the Supreme Court knock knock joke of the week?

Knock knock.

Who's th- gbivgs lviushv ;uiosdv;fbv dh kskblujvbseiuvhew;ofihnewrikhbe. Ouch – stop kicking me in the spleen!

Oh man, that gets me every time!

For those of us who hoped against hope that new Supreme Court Justices would not send our country into a Orwellian tailspin, yesterday destroyed our last bit of optimism. In a 5-4 ruling that aligned on strict partisan agendas, the Court ruled that police backed by a search warrant can enter a home without knocking.

Now I like the police. My uncle was a NYPD sergeant. I even have a friend who is a Chicago cop and he tells the best – albeit racist and offensive – stories. These guys risk their lives every day and get too little respect from the people they serve and their politician bosses. That said, can't we make their jobs easier without destroying the constitution?

Now here's the thing – the case in question involved a hardened criminal who was, in fact, guilty of the charges named in the warrant. I can see why the gray areas are difficult to see for "ends justify the means" people. That's why we're SUPPOSED to have enlightened thinkers on the bench…like this guy:

Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote a heated dissent… that was much longer than the majority ruling.

By declining to declare the evidence inadmissible, "the court destroys the strongest legal incentive to comply with the Constitution's knock-and-announce requirement," Justice Breyer wrote. He called the majority's finding "doubly troubling."

"It represents a significant departure from the court's precedents," he wrote. "And it weakens, perhaps destroys, much of the practical value of the Constitution's knock-and-announce protection."

The minority rejected any suggestion that violations like that in Detroit are isolated. "The cases reporting knock-and-announce violations are legion," Justice Breyer wrote. And contrary to the majority's assertion, there is no known case in which a plaintiff has collected "more than nominal damages" for such a violation, he wrote.

"Of course, had the police entered the house lawfully, they would have found the gun and drugs," Justice Breyer wrote. "But that fact is beside the point. The question is not what police might have done had they not behaved unlawfully. The question is what they did do."

"Would a warrant that authorizes entry into a home on Tuesday permit the police to enter on Monday?" Justice Breyer asked rhetorically. "Would a warrant that authorizes entry during the day authorize the police to enter during the middle of the night?"

Let's forget Justice Breyer's rhetorical questions and jump back to his penultimate paragraph. Instead of arguing that the police *would* have discovered Booker Hudson's gun and drugs if they had legally executed the warrant – as Justice Asscunt Scalia essentially did – why do the officers get a free pass? Yes, the ruling may have retrospectively cleared them of wrong-doing, but they were trained to know their actions were illegal at the time.

What's next? Our country invading a sovereign nation under one pretense and then revising justification after its lies were exposed? Now who would believe that?

I wear my sunglasses at night…

…so I can, so I can stick my foot in my mouth.

OK, that's probably not the lyric that Corey Hart had in mind, and it's more of a funny story than true critique of the president, but still…the man wears idiocy amazingly well, don't you think?

Most people have probably already heard about President Bush's calling out of a shades-wearing reporter at a recent press conference. No? Well, here's the transcript:

Bush: Yes, Peter. Are you going to ask that question with shades on?

Los Angeles Times' Peter Wallsten: I can take them off.

Bush: I'm interested in the shade look, seriously.

Wallsten: All right, I'll keep it, then.

Bush: For the viewers, there's no sun.

Wallsten: I guess it depends on your perspective.

Bush: Touché.

The (ahem) joke here is that Wallsten is legally blind due to a genetic defect – the degenerative effect of which can be slowed by avoiding bright lights. To his credit, Bush called Wallsten immediately after discovering his faux pas and the reporter chose not to make a big deal out of one of the president's less deadly and more understandable blunders.

Hey – we've all said some pretty dumb things (some of us on Pennsylvania Avenue more so than others), but if you thought I was going to let this story pas by without comment, well, you don't know me or my sense of humor all that well.

Frankly, I think Dubya is just a big fan of 80s new wave band Timbuk3. Remember their hit that achieved heavy rotation due to its appearance on the great watchable Robin Givens vehicle "Head of the Class"? Bush sings it every day: "I study nuc-u-lar science, I love my classes. I got a crazy teacher who wears dark glasses. Things are going great…and they're only getting better. I'm doing alright, getting good grades, the future's so bright – I got to make fun of disabled reporters for wearing shades."

Seriously, you think that one is on the president's iPod?

The 50/50 Corollary

Because my writing style is not so much derivative as it is plagiaristic (tomato/to-mah-to), I tend to subconsciously replicate whatever is currently on my reading list. With that in mind, I bring you the first installment of "What I'm Reading" – a mostly masturbatorial exercise in giving credit where credit is due.

I am about two-thirds through Sex, Drugs and Cocoa Puffs by Spin writer, Esquire columnist and sometimes ESPN.com contributor Chuck Klosterman. What's the book about, you ask? Try this one on for size:

Life is chock-full of lies, but the biggest lie is math. That's particularly clear in the discipline of probability, a field of study that's completely and wholly fake. When push comes to shove – when you truly get down to the core essence of existence – there is only one mathematical possibility: Everything is 50-50. Either something will happen, or something will not.

When you flip a coin, what are the odds of it coming up heads? 50-50. Either it will be heads, or it will not. When you roll a six-sided die, what are the odds that you'll roll a three? 50-50. You'll either get a three, or you won't. That's reality. Don't fall into the childish 'it's one-in-six' logic trap. That is precisely what all your adolescent authority figures want you to believe. That's how they enslave you. That's how they stole your conviction, and that's why you will never be happy. Either you will roll a three, or you will not; there are no alternatives. The future has no memory. Certain things can be impossible, and certain things can be guaranteed--but there is no sliding scale for maybe. Maybe something will happen, or maybe it won't. That's all there is. What are the chances that your sister will die from ovarian cancer next summer? 50-50 (either she'll die from ovarian cancer or she won't). What are the chances that your sister will become America's most respected underwater wielding specialist? 50-50. It will happen, or it won't. There are two possibilities, and both are plausible and unknown. The odds are 2:1. These facts are irrefutable.

Quasi-intellectuals like to claim that math is spiritual. They are lying. Math is not religion. Math is the antireligion, because it splinters the gravity of life's only imperative equation: Either something is true, or it isn't. Do or do not; there is no try.

Or if that was a bit too existential for you, there's always this bit of wisdom disguised in a generational metaphor: "Quite simply, Winona Ryder is Luke Skywalker, only with a better haircut and a killer rack."

And that, folks, is what I'm reading. Happy now?

Reading between the Lines

So I took another week plus off. Sue me. Can't a man go to Vegas, win lots of money, spend foolishly and debaucherously, lose lots of money, get limbs broken by burley goons and return home a shell of his former self? In my America he can!

Anyway, what better way to get back into the groove than by returning to an old PatRoW favorite – poking fun at a speech given by President Bush ! This was one he made yesterday, alongside Iraqi puppet Prime Minister Maliki (no, not that one – this guy apparently never pitched for the Mets):

PRESIDENT BUSH: Mr. Prime Minister, thank you for this opportunity to visit with your cabinet. I have expressed our country's desire to work with you, but I appreciate you recognizing the fact that the future of this country is in your hands.

In other words, I'm taking credit for any success, but it's your fault if shit gets blown up.

The decisions you and your cabinet make will be determinate as to whether or not a country succeeds that can govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself.

As long as those decisions don't interefere with me and my cabinet. In that case, you can govern, sustain and defend your ass...but it won't much matter.

I'm impressed by the strength of your character and your desire to succeed. And I'm impressed by your strategy.

And I'm impressed by people who know their multiplication tables. Ain't it crazy about the number nine? Whenever you times it out, the numbers always add up to nine. I've got some geeks over at NASA trying to find an exception, but so far, nothing. I'm also impressed by fish – how do they hold their breath so long?

We discussed the security strategy. We discussed an economic strategy, a reconstruction strategy. And all of it makes sense to me.

The security strategy? Don't die. The economic strategy? Make more money. The reconstruction strategy? Build more buildings. If only an exit strategy was as simple…

And so I've come to not only look you in the eye…

Don't look him in the eye! Oh that's right…this isn't Cheney. I thought for a second we would have to call the prime minister Iraqi Pillar of Salt Maliki.

…I've also come to tell you that when America gives its word, it will keep its word.

Kinda like how a genie in a magic lamp keeps his word. You know, when you say "I want a big penis", he turns you into a horse or an over-the-hill drummer with Hepatitis C.

It's in our interests that Iraq succeed.

And when I say "our interests", of course I mean me and my buddies. And when I say "succeed", of course I mean line our pockets and pillage Iraq's natural resources. And when I say "hey" you say "ho".

It's not only in the interests of the Iraqi people, it's in the interests of the American people and for people who love freedom.

"People who love freedom"? This is Bush's version of calling someone "fun loving". Shit everyone loves freedom and everyone loves fun. Hitler thought genocide was fun – he was one crazy, fun-loving guy! Well guess what? Osama bin Laden loves freedom too – why else is he hiding from our forces in the Pakistani mountains? If he wasn't such a freedom lover, wouldn't he have already turned himself in?

Iraq is a part of the war on terror.

Some would say Iraq IS the war on terror. Or, you know, at least a distraction from the real war on terror.

And so, Mr. Prime minister, I want to thank you for giving me and my Cabinet a chance to hear from you personally and a chance to meet the members of this team you've assembled. It's an impressive group of men and women, and if given the right help, I'm convinced you will succeed.

They all know that they're just figureheads, right? Don't y'all go thinking about making any real plans now, ya hear? Remember, I'm the decider – except when Laura tells me I can't go outside in my Scooby Doo pajamas. She's good with decisions like that.

Happy Birthday, you malicious killer!

In honor of AIDS's silver anniversary of death and scaring girls in my high school into forced celibacy, the Boston Globe has unveiled its Top 10 Steps Africans can take to curb the AIDS Epidemic .

I hate to be Oscar Obvious here, but shouldn't #1 be to stop having unprotected sex? Despite the obvious slight, I've reprinted the list below, and though AIDS is no laughing matter, I've given it my best shot. It was, after all, the unfunniest Top 10 List since, well, last Thursday on Letterman.

1) Make HIV testing part of regular health checkups – you know, because the free clinics are inundated with supplies and the required funds to run a safe and accurate test on the tens of thousands of refugees they see each month

2) Test Couples Together – the Globe actually suggests AIDS testing as a first date activity. And they say romance is dead…

3) Promote male circumcision – besides, chicks don't dig Peelers

4) Focus the public health message – the "solution" sounds a lot like what is currently being done…make condoms readily available, teach abstinence and monogamy. And how exactly is this any more of a "focused message"?

5) Make Africa a sports mecca – an actual quote: "Young people have time on their hands. They need something besides sex that is free and fun."

6) Enforce drinking laws –

During weekend nights in Livingstone, one bar stays open until 3 a.m. and another until 5 a.m. Bartenders serve beer to children as young as 10. And yet the law calls for shutting down bars at 11 p.m. and no sale of alcohol to minors. ``Young boys who never used to drink or smoke are out playing eight-ball pool and drinking and smoking," said Chris Lubasi, 24, who runs youth programs in Livingstone. Drinking to excess clouds judgment, increasing the risk of unprotected sex.

Are there a lot of 10-year-olds getting drunk, fucking random women and contracting the AIDS, or are we losing focus?

7) Protect the babies – Won't somebody think of the children?

8) Encourage men to communicate – next thing you know, they're going to try to tell us that if we stop and ask for directions we won't get AIDS. I say NEVER!

9) Build networks of hospice workers – uh, that actually makes a lot of sense. Paying these people, however, would take money directly out of coffers reserved for medicine.

10) Support local journalists covering the problem – so American journalists (and bloggers) don't have to waste any more time pretending to understand the problem and offer ridiculous solutions.

On Deck?

As the calendar brings us to June 2006, you surely know what political event is right around the corner? No, not mid-term congressional elections…I'm talking about the 2008 presidential campaign!

Senator Russ Feingold and Governor Mark Warner, two high-profile Democrats (and likely presidential candidates), were in New Hampshire over the weekend, speaking to and getting the rockstar treatment from the state's party convention (rockstar treatment meaning standing ovations and photo-ops, not lines of coke off of whore asses…though I wouldn't put it past that rascal Feingold). Notably absent was Hillary Clinton, who, though an extraordinarily competent politician, would do he party the most good by not challenging for the nomination.

Why are Feingold and Warner generating such early buzz? Salon suggests it is because they represent "the purist and pragmatic wings of the party".

Feingold has made other Democrats look timorous by championing withdrawal from Iraq and a Senate resolution censuring the president. Warner has emerged as the party's latest Southern white knight, the red-state dragon slayer who combines a sterling record as governor with an appealing business background as a mega-rich cellphone entrepreneur who helped found Nextel.

Sounds good, right? Perhaps if we get these two in front of the nation early, we can avoid a drawn out primary season filled with Democratic in-fighting. The problem is that Feingold may have a bit too much Dean in him to be a viable threat to carry battleground states in the Midwest, and Warner may not be different enough to truly bring the party back to its core values.

The Iraq war serves as a prime illustration of this yin-yang debate. Feingold in his speech was characteristically direct: "Why are so many Democrats too timid to say what everyone in America knows? It's time to redeploy the troops. It's time to bring the troops out of Iraq. I say bring them home by the end of the year."

"The new Iraqi government," Warner said, "has to …step up and disband the militias and try to bring about some level of stability. …The only way it can happen is if we involve the balance of the Iraqi neighbors. Bring them all to the table. Form some level of a Regional Contact Group, so this is no longer simply an American problem."

The Dean/Lieberman comparisons aside, the differences between the two candidates are more than, as Salon points out, a study in "dueling bumper stickers reading: 'Bring Our Troops Home for Xmas' and 'Form a Regional Contact Group – Now!'"

No, looking at Feingold and Warner today is really looking at the future of the Democratic Party. While Warner stands a much better chance of picking up support in swing states, Feingold is a more vocal bearer of liberal values. Is it worth sacrificing another presidential election to ensure that the party's core beliefs are represented in our candidate? I don't know, and I don't know if either guy can beat John McCain…but I guess we have 28 more months to figure things out.

'Brave' New World

The current edition of Newsweek features a piece by Allan Sloan that details the loopholes and tax incentives attached to the impending sale of the Atlanta Braves (truth be told, I only read the article because it had something to do with baseball. Business writers usually give me boredom seizures).

Anyway, it seems that the sale will be a financial boon for both the seller (Time Warner) and buyer (Liberty Mutual). If you're curious as to how two multi billion dollar companies could both come out ahead in the same deal, well, you haven't been paying attention to the man in the White House's agenda.

How does [President Bush's] Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 involve the Braves? Here's the play-by-play. Time Warner would put the team (valued at about $450 million) and about $1.35 billion of cash into a subsidiary. It would then trade that subsidiary for a Liberty unit that would be holding about $1.8 billion of the Time Warner stock that Liberty already owns. By the time the fat lady sings, Liberty would own the Braves and a slug of cash, and Time Warner would have gotten about 100 million of Liberty's 171 million Time Warner shares.

That sure looks like a sale—but not to tax lawyers, because the tax-cut legislation specifically blesses cash-rich split-offs.

Confused? That's the point – keep us non-financial wizards in the dark while the rich line one another's pockets. I needed to read the next paragraph to fully grasp the sheer ass-rape we're facing:

How much money are we talking about here? A lot. Were Time Warner to sell the Braves outright for $450 million, it would owe about $175 million of federal and state income taxes, by my estimate. (Turner Broadcasting, acquired by Time Warner in 1996, paid just $10 million for the Braves in 1976.) Thus, swapping the team for $450 million of its own stock is a lot better for Time Warner than merely selling it. The deal also offers Liberty a great way to cash in most of its Time Warner stake, much of which dates back to 1987. Were Liberty to make a conventional sale of $1.8 billion of its Time Warner stock, it would owe more than $500 million of tax, by my estimate. Possibly much more.

Does that make any more sense? It is certainly hard to believe, but I think you should be now able to wrap your head around a $700 million savings for two business behemoths. The worst part of this bullshit loophole is that there is absolutely no justification for it other than to save millions of dollars for billionaires. Though he claims that his tax cuts help the middle- and working classes, Bush's plan does nothing for 99% of his constituency.

Actually, that's not quite true. It screws us over…at least those of us who care about education, health care, the environment and/or world peace. You know, the folks he couldn't care less about.

Separated at Death

In a story ripped from daytime soap operas , it seems that a Michigan coroner's misstep caused a one family to erroneously grieve the loss of their daughter and another to mistakenly celebrate that theirs had survived a horrible accident:

Authorities in Indiana were trying to unravel the heartbreaking mix-up on Wednesday, five weeks after five people — including four students from Taylor University, a small evangelical Christian college in Upland, Ind. — were killed in a crash on Interstate Highway 69, near Marion.

Confusion apparently began in the hectic moments after the deadly April 26 crash involving a semi-tractor trailer loaded with baking flour and the Taylor University van, returning from nearby Ft. Wayne. Grant County (Indiana) Coroner Ron Mowery, whose office handled the death investigations, apologized during a news conference Wednesday for the mix-up.

He described an accident scene where purses and wallets were strewn about and that acquaintances of the students had identified the survivor taken to a Ft. Wayne hospital as [Laura] VanRyn. He said no scientific testing was conducted to verify the identifications.

Call me an optimist, but I can take some modicum of happiness from three aspects of this bizarre story, none of which have anything to do with Whitney Cerak's second chance at life:

1. that the mistaken identity story was first revealed on a *blog* run by the real dead girl's family…I mean, what was the subject heading of that post - "Remember how lucky we were that Laura was alive? Uh, not so much"?
2. that the more attractive girl lived (see photos in the linked story…similar appearance my ass!). How's that for proof of a higher power? God loves hot chicks!
3. perhaps now people will finally recognize the dangers of baking flour and its associated means of transportation. We need to stop this white menace before it takes any more of our youngest and brightest!