The New Iraqi Bank Note

there goes the journalistic integrity

Another great note from moveon...

Since Fox News is unable to rebut the basic premise of "Outfoxed," its anchors have resorted to slamming the film's technique. Fox News' convention correspondent Carl Cameron, who is portrayed in the movie sucking up to then-Governor Bush before an interview, complained "It was an unfortunate piece of editing in the movie that gave a far worse impression than the reality."

To counter this charge, director Robert Greenwald has released the entire footage of Cameron's pre-interview moments with Bush, when he didn't realize the tape was rolling. The full clip makes Cameron look even worse. He spends a full three minutes fawning over Bush. See this outrageous footage here:

http://www.moveon.org/r?539

All this bluster hides the serious fact that Fox News allows political partisans like Cameron to do important journalistic interviews, even when there are blatant conflicts of interest.

Call up Fox News and tell them to reassign Carl Cameron from the conventions and find a political reporter who doesn't carry a partisan bias, at:

Fox News Channel
(212) 301-3000
Please let us know you're making this call, at:

http://www.moveon.org/foxcalls2.html?id=3167-3218763-stRLwf9fVxB.l5.GpRNxwg

This footage is a smoking gun -- Fox News is a Republican outlet, and the reporters make no bones about it. At most networks, even a perception of a conflict of interests is enough to reassign a reporter. In 2000, a CNN producer whose husband was a lawyer for Gore was told not to have anything to do with campaign coverage [1]. Last Thursday, the San Francisco Chronicle put its letters editor on leave for contributing $400 to the Kerry campaign [2]. Not so at Fox News, where Cameron remained in charge of campaign coverage, including the exclusive interview with Bush, despite his wife's involvement with the Bush campaign.

Do conflicts of interest really matter? Well, to take just one example, the head analyst of election results for Fox News in 2000 was John Ellis, Bush's first cousin. On Mr. Ellis' advice, Fox News was the first to declare Bush the winner of Florida and the presidency. Ellis' call for Bush set off a cascade of similar calls by other networks, ultimately leading to the infamous Florida vote-counting controversy [3].

Blatant conflicts of interest like Cameron's and Ellis' highlight an appalling lack of journalistic balance on the part of Fox News. To permit such assignments is unprofessional and deceptive. It's the sort of behavior that gives Fox News such a bad name.

Most news outlets would be embarrassed and apologetic. Fox News is smug and unrepentant. Worse, they are doing it again this election. Before we go any further, demand Fox News reassign Carl Cameron from the conventions and choose a reporter without personal ties to one candidate:

Roger Ailes, CEO and Chairman
Fox News Channel
(212) 301-3000

Of course, Fox News is trying hard to deny its obvious partisanship. Both Cameron and Roger Ailes always cite a single story as proof that Fox News doesn't favor Republicans: the discovery of George W. Bush's arrest for drunken driving in the final week of the 2000 election. Fox News takes credit for getting the scoop. Real journalists at Salon magazine, however, reveal that the story was discovered by a young reporter at a local Fox broadcast affiliate, WPXT-TV in Portland, Maine, not the team at Fox News Channel. Fox News recently affirmed it has "no editorial oversight" of any Fox affiliate [4]. Read the Salon story at:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/07/23/fox_dui_moveon/

Salon provides excellent, independent journalism without partisanship or personal conflicts of interest. This is the sort of journalism we need to support with our subscription dollars. Salon is offering a 50% discount to MoveOn members. Can you help support Salon's important work? Please subscribe now at the link above.

Thanks for all you're doing to encourage true balance in our national news media. Our democracy depends on it.

Sincerely,
--Wes Boyd and Noah T. Winer
  MoveOn.org
  July 28th, 2004 

On Abortion

I sat at Peet's today, reading about the Democratic convention, thinking about the politics of the abortion issue. And my caffeinated mind began playing out my own views. I began to think about this divisive moral question from a spiritualist's perspective.

The question on the right to kill an unborn child is moot – no one would argue in favor of death. This is not a question of life vs. abortion. The question is: at what point does this collection of fertilized cells become “life”? Thus the argument gets tricky and turns into a highly subjective, immensely personal decision.

I personally believe that the inception of life is a Divine act which should be left to run its course. That’s why I will not, under any circumstances, have an abortion should I ever become pregnant.

And I’ll thank the government to let me make that choice on my own. Granted, as a man, this probably won’t come up in the foreseeable future. But those for whom this is a more immediate issue deserve the free will to make this difficult moral decision on their own.

The standards by which I decide on a definition of life come from my own instincts and experiences. When the existence of a soul is unprovable by universal standards, we have only our own experiences to lend guidance.

Unfortunately, many who seek to make this choice for others are not even guided by personal experiences but rather the influence of environment – family, peers, church, community. When social conditioning dictates a belief or course of action, that belief or action automatically becomes contrived. Valueless. False. And above all, unworthy as a measure for the actions of a stranger.

As sentient beings, we are each accorded free will and the right to discover our own moral code. As a society, we create laws to codify the obvious boundaries between one anothers’ free will. In other words, my free will ends where yours begins. When my personal choice limits yours, for example through murder or theft, then I violate the universal principle of free will. And in the US, I violate the law (unless I work for the government, where murder is called “death penalty” and theft is called “imminent domain”).

But what if one person’s actions do not blatantly impinge on the free will of another? When the boundaries are blurred – does a collection of fertilized cells have free will? – then we have only our self-discovered moral code on which to base our decisions. If that moral code somehow violates cosmic law, then who metes out the consequences? Again, the punisher, as with the crime itself, becomes a subjective perspective – God? St. Peter? Karma? Pluto/Hades? Extra-dimension aliens? Those with a framework for deciding the crime must rely on the same framework for deciding punishment.

In other words, where God judges a sin, let God punish it as well.

No human has the authority to be God’s moral advocate on this earth. Let God do God’s work. And let God’s followers follow. Those of us who screw up will be dealt with.

something for everyone

Here's a patriotic little ditty we can all rally around.

big deep questions

Here are the questions keeping me up tonight (I mean that literally - I have insomnia again):

- Are we born with a Purpose for our lives, which we must then discover and fulfill? Or is Desire the only real point to this story? Or are they one and the same? Why it matters: if we do have a single (or even dual) goal for being here, then we have some sort of benchmark by which we can test our life choices - their efficacy in propelling us down our unique path. This is not the same as Destiny or Fate, in which whatever happens was going to happen / was meant to happen all along. I do believe we are at choice in every moment. The question for me is what guides that choice - Purpose or Desire?

- If you can, with a snap of your fingers, completely change your attitude / mood / emotional state, should you? Is this honest? Is it natural? Authentic? A prostitute, an actor, and a meditator all have one thing in common - they generate a new state of mind at will which is often vasty different from the previous state of mind. If I'm feeling depressed, I can meditate myself to happiness. But is that honest? Have I addressed the root cause of the original depression? Does it make me genuinely happy? If I see someone less fortunate, then I can, at will, generate a feeling of compassion, no matter how pissy I'm feeling at the moment. Does that make me genuinely compassionate?
   Why it matters: there's a group of people whom, when I'm not around them, I view with distrust and disconnection. Yet when I'm with them, I'm part of the gang, connected, enjoying myself, wondering why the heck I don't spend more time with them. Which is the truth? Is kinship authentic when I don't feel it in solitude?

And now back to our regularly scheduled political diatribes.

whew - that's a relief

Well, the records have been located. Now the question is what the heck do they say.

An update:

Bush moved to Alabama in May 1972 to work on a political campaign and, he has said, to perform his Guard service there for a year. But other Guard officers have said they had no recollection of seeing him there.

Last February, the White House released hundreds of pages of Bush's military records. Those records did not provide new evidence to place Bush in Alabama during the latter part of 1972, when some Democrats had said he was basically absent without leave.

Almost funny

This is almost funny, in a sad, sad way. Bush Tells Blacks, 'I'm Here to Ask for Your Vote'

It reminds me of the speech I heard him give to a southern black church. I was listening to NPR and couldn't see what he was actually doing, but it sounded like he'd read from a prepared speech, then step and explain in Very Small Words exactly what he just said. It's like he was talking to a class of pre-schoolers. He'd read a sentence (which was dumbed down to begin with) then stop and say "Now, what that's saying is that we're the good guys." I don't know if it's a withering disrespect for the intelligence of the black community or if he was trying to work out the meaning himself. Either way, it came across unacceptably patronizing and insulting.

Now, if only he'd let blacks vote so they can kick his ass out.

George Says...

This site is awesome. Since George is just a finger puppet anyway, put YOUR words into his mouth instead of Karl Rove's and the veep's.

naughty chess players

So, I just want to be sure I've got this right. We want to throw Bobby Fischer, one of the greatest chess champions of all time, into prison for playing a game of chess??? Fill in your analogy of a much harsher crime (like, all of them) that went unpunished. This is just ridiculous.

depends what the meaning of i$, i$

Is anyone at all concerned that Cheney is still getting paid 150 grand A YEAR from Halliburton, even though he said he'd severed all ties?

Btw, props for the latest flurry of posts goes to ... White House Props - hysterical site, y'all!

Oops, part 2

This has to be one of the funniest damn things I've seen this week.

United Press International: Found notes may show Bush plan on Clarke

White House Gets Permission to Lie

White House Gets Permission to Lie

a well-reasoned argument?

Thanks to a tip from my brother, I subscribe to a conservative newsletter, primarily to keep tabs on the "other" perspective. I try to stay open to other points of view so as to challenge and ultimately strengthen my own, a tactic I don't often see amongst conservatives.

The problem with this idea is that conservative newsletters avoid any sense of reason or logic. For example, the latest newsletter, headlined "Don't Let MoveOn.org Censor Fox News", discusses a campaign by moveon.org to urge congresspeople to support a review of Fox's false advertisement. I think even the most rabid supporter of Faux News will admit that it's not "fair and balanced" and they have no balance using such an expression. It's like bottling battery acid and calling it "smooth and refreshing".

But I want to hear some other points of view, so I read it. Here's what I find:
- "loony leftists"
- "leftists"
- "blatantly liberal"
- "ever-gullible members" (referring to moveon.org members)
- "whackos"
- "loons"
- "out-of-touch far-left"
- "radical left"

And the ultimate slur: calling Fox News "the only bastion of Fair and Balanced news reporting on the air today."

I'm not really getting a lot of information from all this name-calling. The only other "argument" I can see, other than "they're freakin crazy" are repeated accusations of censorship. The way I see it, if the FTC told Fox to report only right-wing (or left-wing) news, that would be censorship. Telling them to report what they want as long as they don't LIE about it is not censorship. And asking our representatives to hold a media corporation accountable for false advertising is what we in this country call Democracy.

If you want to be a puppet for the GOP, then do it. Just don't call it news. And certainly don't call it "fair and balanced."

So if the conservative's only argument for his position is to slap a flag on his ass and call me a loon, then so be it. Just don't say I'm not a patriot, because I cherish the founding principles of this country more than any right-winger will ever comprehend. It's what fuels my relentless anger at this neocon depravity.

Tell me what to think!

I wonder if we would be able to form our own opinions without commentators, Faux News, Rush, NPR, and all the others giving us the proper perspective on issues. It seems to me when the news breaks, each "side" (and there can only ever, EVER be two sides) comes up with the official reaction to it, which is then perpetuated through the entire communications system of America. Congresspeople, newscasters, commentators, talk radio - everyone follows the proper line of analysis.
 
What if the media only reported the news? What if we were left to interpret it ourselves? What if we argued at the coffeeshop using our OWN opinions and not the words we read or heard from someone who analyzes these things for a living?
 
This occurred to me today as I listened to NPR - two editors / commentators discussed Sandy Berger's alleged theft of top secret documents from the govt archive. The official left-spin is that this investigation has been ongoing for months and has just now been leaked to the press, the day before the release of the 9/11 commission report. Obviously someone on the right leaked the story and blew it out of proportion to distract America's attention from a damning report. The right-spin is that Berger engaged in some incredibly suspicious activity, most certainly did not take the papers "accidentally", and is out of politics for good because of this. Now I don't know WHAT to think because I've already been polluted with predigested analysis.
 
Thank goodness for that - I have so many other things to worry about right now. It helps to have someone smart think things through for me.

obstinance helps no one

Bush Withholds Key Records About National Guard

Turns out there may be COPIES of those records that were mysteriously destroyed. But Bush won't let us see even the copies. I, for one, am terribly intrigued.

Support Alternet

Support Alternet and get a copy of Outfoxed. WHAT A DEAL! This is like a twofer to me - supporting a great news site at the same time you're getting an incredible new documentary.

My uncle told me last year that "The only network putting out the truth right now is Fox." I wonder what he would think of this video.

What year are we in?

I got a SERIOUS case of deja vu when I read this: Measure to Outlaw Flag Burning Advances in Senate

Why the HELL are republicans wasting our time on this crap??? Only a few weeks left til the end of this congressional session and we've passed NONE of the major security bills waiting for a vote because these zealous hypocrits are pushing divisive social issues.

I know I'm sounding like the angry liberal, the flip-side of Rush, but republicans must really hate this country. They hate democracy. They hate unity. They hate peace. They gots to get them votes. And the only way they think they can maintain some power is to continue dividing our society and driving a stake through any chance at bipartisan unity.

Bah.

I'm a war president - no, peace - no, war - wait

Bush: 'I Want to Be the Peace President'

Bush in February: "I'm a war president. I make decisions here in the Oval Office in foreign policy matters with war on my mind."

Bush today: "The enemy declared war on us. Nobody wants to be the war president. I want to be the peace president."

Official GOP sound bite: "Kerry's a flip-flopper."

Mr. Bush? Line 2 - it's George Orwell. He wants his irony back.

Let's try this again

Iraq Requests Return of UN Nuclear Inspectors

Of course, last time Iraq requested the inspectors come in and do their job, we (1) pulled the inspectors out, (2) overrode the inspectors opinion that there were no WMDs, (3) basically called the inspectors liars, (4) accused Sadam of kicking the inspectors out (he didn't - we did), and (5) bombed Iraq with a few of our own WMDs anyway.

Things will be different this time. An election is coming up.

Liberals, get over it!

Governor's 'girlie-men' remark stirs flap

This is a good example of getting your knickers in a twist over nothing. Much as I like to think my other progressives have the good of society at heart (and they do, even here), sometimes they get a bit TOO sensitive. CHOOSE YOUR WARS, if you must. This is not one of them.

As a sensitive gay man, I'm not at all concerned about Democrats being called "girlie-men". This is just Schwarzenegger being the man Californians voted on - brutish, fratboy crude at times, and more than a little silly. But seriously nothing to get upset over.

Get upset over what he's doing to the budget.

Pondering our highest potential

I've been thinking more about what I can offer the planet, other than cynical and irate blog posts. My thoughts keep returning to my heroes and how their actions and vision inspired us to live up to our highest potential. There's the keyword: highest potential.
 
I believe the actions we take and words we say should be in alignment with our own highest potential. That said, I have no idea how to make that happen. But it's something to become more aware of - I look out at the world around me and observe the crass messages that appeal to the bottom of our potential. Marketing images and messages. Buy me! Wear this! Consume! Political ads. Fear! Hate! Ruin!
 
What if we could somehow demand of our corporate and government leaders that they appeal to the higher potential of all of us? In an enlightened world, no doubt this would be done automatically, without even being aware of it. But in a world where we actually have to legislate against obvious abuse of human beings (anti-sweatshop laws, anti-slavery laws, anti-violence laws, laws, laws, more laws), then what sort of policy might enact virtue?
 
Impossible - for virtue is not the realm of law but of humans. It is up to us to demand virtue and integrity of our organizations. Corporations, government entities, all other entities through which humans come together, are nothing more than collectives of individuals. Assuming a disguise for the collective, a proxy entity that represents everyone at once, does not allow us to forsake basic noble values.
 
It is incumbent upon us to demand better from the image makers of our society. Forget non-whatever (no violence, no nudity, no drinking, no swearing, etc, etc, etc). Focusing on the non gets us just that - whatever we're focused on.
 
Focus instead on our highest potential. Imagine a billboard that speaks to our innate compassion. Imagine a radio spot that inspires us to do good for someone else. Imagine a leader that speaks to our collective hope for peace and opportunity.
 
We each have the power to create this in our society and in our lives. But we must focus on them. Demand them. Most important, live them.

Singer Linda Ronstadt Ejected by Las Vegas Casino

Sad, sad, sad. Singer Linda Ronstadt Ejected by Las Vegas Casino

I'm not sure if this says more about the type of people who go to Vegas or the type of people who vote Republican. Probably the latter. It seems a typical response - if you don't like someone's opinion, trash the place. Now I'm sure country stations around the nation will have big Rondstadt CD burning bonfires, like they did with the Dixie Chicks.

Iran next?

I have an idea, let's invade Iran. It's just one country over - we won't even have to get out all them big ships and planes and things.

How low can they go?

I'm sure I'm repeating myself now, but I'm just stunned at how crass, malicious, downright evil the GOP can go. This is from gop.com itself: In Case You Missed It: Michael Moore, Hezbollah Heartthrob - some bizarre and petty link between Michael Moore and a terrorist group.

They're desperate, kids. This is the party that controls this country and the minds of half its population. When the official party line compares dissenting opinion to a TERRORIST group, for God's sake, that's when we must run them out on a rail.

I'm shocked and saddened by this kind of histrionic fear-mongering.

OUTSTANDING speech from Sen. Boxer on FMA

GO BOXER!!!
 
[Partial] STATEMENT OF SENATOR BARBARA BOXER
FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT
July 13, 2004
 
Mr. President, after today, we have 27 legislative days until adjournment – 27 legislative days to deal with the most pressing issues facing this country.
 
We should be passing the Port Security bill and the Rail Security bill, both of which were approved by the Commerce Committee unanimously in April.  We should be passing the Transit Security bill, which was approved by the Banking Committee in May.  We should be passing the Nuclear Plant Security bill, the Chemical Plant Security bill, and the First Responders bill, all of which were approved by the Environment and Public Works Committee last year.  We could be working on those bills to improve our safety instead of worrying about two people of the same gender who have decided to care about each other. 
 
So there you have it.  In the face of all this, what does this Administration want us to do?  A constitutional amendment to prohibit gay marriage – a constitutional amendment that denies millions of Americans equal rights because, even if it does not say so explicitly, it will mean those in domestic partnerships or civil unions will not get equal rights or equal responsibilities.
 
An analysis by David Remes, a partner and legal expert at a well-respected law firm here in Washington, has concluded that this Constitutional amendment will guarantee legal challenges to civil unions and domestic partnerships.  And many have noted, including the American Bar Association, that the language of the Constitutional amendment is so vague that the amendment could be interpreted to ban civil unions and domestic partnerships and the benefits that come with them.
 
This constitutional amendment is divisive to this country.  It is completely unnecessary.  And it enshrines discrimination in the constitution – the constitution – a document meant to expand rights.  We have never amended the Constitution to deny rights and to deny equality.
 
In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this year, University of Chicago Law School Professor Cass Sunstein noted that all of the amendments to the Constitution are either expansions of individual rights or attempts to remedy problems in the structure of government.  The sole exception was the 18th Amendment that established Prohibition – and that attempt to write social policy into the Constitution was such a disaster that it was repealed less than 15 years later.
 
The list of adopted Constitutional amendments is short – but impressive.  There are the first ten amendments – the Bill of Rights – that guarantee important liberties to the American people from freedom of speech and the press to the right to be secure in our homes to the freedom of religion.
 
There are the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments that undo the terrible injustices of slavery, ensure African-Americans the right to vote, and guarantee everyone the equal protection of the laws.  There is the 19th Amendment that gave women the
right to vote –   the 24th amendment that banned poll taxes to
further ensure minorities the right to vote – and the 26th amendment that gave 18 year olds the right to vote.  Quite an impressive list – a list that seeks to expand freedom and equality. 
 
The Constitution is a gift we have inherited from those giants among men who wrote it 217 years ago.  As written, it was not perfect and we have had to amend the Constitution from time to time.  But, it should never be used to take away rights from decent, loyal Americans.  It should never be used to make a group of Americans permanent second-class citizens.
 
This amendment would make it impossible for states to say to two people who love each other, care for each other, and are willing to die for each other that they have equal inheritance rights, equal hospital visitation rights, equal benefits under the law.  That’s outrageous.
 
My state has a domestic partnership law.  California’s law is, I believe, a start.  It gives same-sex couples many of the same rights and responsibilities as married couples.  It is not perfect, and we need to do more.  But even this imperfect law has meant so much to so many people in California.  And for this Congress to take that away from them by amending the Constitution is wrong and mean spirited.
 
One of my colleagues says that marriage is under assault from gay relationships.  Well I must tell you straight from my heart – not one married couple has ever come up to me and said their marriage was under assault because two people of the same gender down the street care about each other.  If we were truly concerned about strengthening marriages and strengthening families in this country, we would pass an increase in the minimum wage.  We would pass a bill to make sure people had the same health insurance that members of Congress have.  We would pass a bill to make sure that all children have a high quality education.  And instead of freezing the number of kids in after school programs, we would allow them to partake in programs that keep them safe until mom or dad comes home from work.
 
What is really going on here – the real motive here – is crass, cold, hard politics.  This is being done to distract attention from the real issues facing this country.  This constitutional amendment is being used as a weapon of mass distraction.  And this constitutional amendment is being used as a tool for the upcoming political campaigns.  Shame on us.
 
The Constitution should never be used as a political football or as an applause meter before an election.  It truly is a disgrace on the Senate to play politics with the Constitution, and I hope and pray that the American people see this for what it is. 
 
Mr. President, we are all God’s children.  No two of us are alike – we have different color eyes; we have different color hair; we have different color skin; we are different genders; and yes, we have different sexual orientations.  We are all different, and yet we are all united behind the common cause of freedom, justice, and equality.
 
This Constitutional amendment is an attempt to appeal to our prejudice instead of our compassion – our hate instead of our hopes – our fears instead of our dreams.  This Constitutional amendment is an appeal to what is the worst in us instead of an appeal to what is the best in us.
 
In his first Inaugural Address, Abraham Lincoln appealed to “the better angels of our nature.”  This amendment flies in the face of these words.  So regardless of what you think about gay marriage – regardless of whether you are for or against domestic partnerships and civil unions, which I support strongly – regardless of whether you support or oppose the law in your state – this Constitutional amendment should be soundly defeated.
 
I urge my colleagues to do the right thing.  I urge my colleagues to put the Constitution above any possible political gain.  I urge my colleagues to put the Constitution above their own political well-being.  That is the measure of a true patriot.  Voting against this Constitutional amendment is the right thing to do. 
 
And turning our attention to the awesome, challenging and difficult issues facing America’s families is what we must do – for the good of the Senate, for the good of our constituents, for the good of our country.
 
=================================================== 
  

Congress.org

Congress.org is a GREAT site for keeping tabs on what your elected officials are doing and contacting them. Also, members of Working Assets Long Distance can call their elected officials for free! Yet another great reason to join Working Assets. (Geez - I'm starting to sound like a commercial. This really is NOT a sponsored site. I promise.)

great new video clip

This is awesome. Be sure to sign the petition before or after you watch the video.

windsurfer

When John Kerry goes windsurfing, does he have secret service men surfing alongside him?

When can we stop calling him the "presumptive candidate" and start calling him the "presumptive president". I think now is a good time.

change of tone

My little compassionate blog has not been too compassionate. I get stirred up as easily as the rest. I look for middle ground, for negotiation between ideologies. But it's like negotiating with the devil or, as Bush likes to point out when trying to patronize touchy feely libruls, negotiating with terrorists.

I often fall into the us vs them trap when thinking about those with vastly different political ideologies. One thing that occurs to me is the uneven playing field. If you're playing chess with a cheater, it takes extraordinary brilliance and vigilance to win, especially when the cheater is constantly distracting you by shouting "FIRE" and pointing behind your back.

For any difference of opinion to be successfully negotiated, both sides must agree to certain ground rules. Above all, honesty. Mutual respect. Fair communication. What we have instead is, on tv, shouting heads trying to interrupt each other to get their talking points across (see Outfoxed now, at least the trailer).

Far worse, you have one side for whom nothing is off limits. The "new conservative" will manipulate shamelessly, lie, misquote, misdirect, mislead, and then accuse truthtellers of the same. It's like an Orwellian Attack - accuse your opponent of doing what you just did before they ever have a chance to do anything in the first place.

For me, it comes down to the nature of Evil. I've come to believe that, given a choice, most people will do harm. Though we were all born into the same purity of soul, the same innate Goodness, this culture poisons Goodness and innocence. Our true natures scab over with crusty layers of cynicism, irony, and other self-protection mechanisms. As a result, the first impulse for most people has become Attack or, at the least, Defend.

So what of those who remain for whom Love is the first option? For whom Welcome is the natural instinct? What of Compassion and Integrity and Humility? Can the good guys win in this world? Especially when no one else is playing by "the rules", whatever those are?

People who play by the rules are at a natural disadvantage.

Which means that those with the courage and dedication to play fair anyway will win the ultimate test.

I believe this is the ultimate test, right here on earth, right now. Those of us who, when faced with all the worst humanity has become still demand of themselves only the highest standard, will prove the potential for Goodness to survive in the chaos.

When faced with only hate, we must continue to welcome.

When faced with cruelty and apathy, we must continue to care.

When faced with hopelessness, we must continue to hope.

In doing so, we don't validate ourselves or our own virtue. No, these things cannot be validated by our own egos.

Instead, we validate the potential of Love. That is the test.

Which is stronger, Love or Fear? Can Love survive in a state of chaos and hate? Tune in next week for the next episode of "Trial By Fire: Earth in the 21st Century".

At times, I'm consumed by hate, filled with rage, fueled by passion borne of anger and a deep sense of injustice. For me, the warring demons and angels of my own soul reflect a larger battle. I'm just an average Joe, a typical guy, just trying to make it through life without hurting myself or anybody else. If I can survive the forces of ambivalence and rage with my heart intact, then I've proven (to myself at least) that it can be done.

And that's all I'm really concerned with - proving it to myself. That's my personal goal, to keep compassion alive despite all the reasons not to.

he's got cajones

Bush Says His Re-Election Will Make America Safer - this has to be his ballsiest statement yet, just in case it wasn't yet blindingly obvious to the grannies in Podunk, Texas that he's using his make-believe war as a political ploy.

How obvious do repubs have to make it to prove that they will stop at NOTHING to grab and retain power? This has NOTHING to do with safety, with American values or freedom or liberties. This is about three easy words: POWER POWER and POWER. Nothing else.

It's like this chilling bit that slipped by most peoples' radars. The day ANY group is able to manipulate the time, place, or outcome of our ability to vote is the day this "experiment" of democracy has failed. Of course, it could be said that Florida has already proven such. But we've obviously not seen the worst of what these villains are truly capable of.

Hey! You! Get Off of My Cloud

There's just something really fascinating about this for some reason.

BEIJING (Reuters) - A storm is brewing in China as drought-plagued regions accuse each other of stealing clouds for rain-seeding.

With the help of modern technology, scientists can fire rockets filled with various substances into light, fluffy clouds to make them rain.

"But the practice has caused considerable controversy in recent days, with some saying that one area's success with rain has meant taking moisture meant for one place and giving it to another," the China Daily said on Wednesday.

The row over rainclouds was particularly heated in several cities in central Henan province.

"Meteorological officials in Zhoukou were soon accusing their counterparts in Pingdingshan of overusing available natural resources by intercepting clouds that would have likely drifted to other places, say, like Zhoukou," the newspaper said.

Much of China is short of water and cloud-seeding is common, especially over major cities.

Oopsie...

Key Bush Military Service Files Destroyed

Separated at Birth?

Random thought: Are Michael Moore and Bruce Vilanch actually the same person?