Mr Mahatma--who is a Mr in real life--lives in the valleys of Southern California with his wife, a herd of Dears, and an impressive collection of books. Pnorny!
He is reachable at:
littlemrmahatma@yahoo.com

All writings are copyrighted 2003-2008 and trademarked: Little Mr. Mahatma

tBlog Mirror

Some fun links:
Little Miss Attila - polar opposite and origin of LMM.

Critical Sites:
Dr. Forbush Thinks
Slashdot
Games Slashdot
UserFriendly
James Randi
Snopes
Home of the Underdogs
The Sun Online

For those generous in spirit, heart, and wallet:

European, US firms awarded bids for Iraqi oil


April 19, 2004


Four European firms and one from the United States were awarded bids for the purchase of six million barrels of oil from Iraq's northern fields, a spokesman for the Iraqi oil ministry said today.


Assem Jihad said US major ExxonMobil had acquired one-third of the offer in its second purchase in a month of oil from the Kirkuk fields.


The others, which each took up one million barrels, were named as Spain's Repsol YPF and Cepsa, Hellenic Petroleum from Greece and Tupras of Turkey.


In a first auction last month no US firm was successful, the winners being Royal Dutch/Shell, France's Total, Eni of Italy, Repsol YPF, Hellenic Petroleum and Tupras, with one million barrels each.


The oil will be piped for loading at Turkey's Mediterranean terminal of Ceyhan.


The pipeline became operational last month after being largely out of use since last August, following the invasion of US-led forces and the ousting of dictator Saddam Hussein.


Saddam loyalists and other insurgents were blamed for a series of attacks on the pipeline which disrupted flow.


AFP

Let's see if Exxon lowers its prices.

Lakers Feeling Heat
It's April and the darn temp is over 90 freaking degrees. Lakers are unable to decimate opponents despite talent up the wazoo. They need to shut down those pesky Rockets Wednesday. Otherwise San Antonio will be too rested. Ugly blast-furnace times in La-la-land.

Republican Mindset
They always "stick to their guns". Where logic fails, firepower prevails. Just envision Bush strutting around in a jumpsuit with "that smirk".

"NAPLES, Fla. - President Bush (news - web sites) said Friday he is a committed conservationist who will safeguard the nation's natural treasures, rejecting widespread criticism that his administration has harmed the environment.


"I know there's a lot of politics when it comes to the environment, but what I like to do is focus on ... results" and "I am committed to preserving Florida's natural beauty," Bush told an audience of several hundred supporters at the environmentally sensitive Rookery Bay Estuarine Research Reserve on the Gulf Coast adjacent to the Everglades."

How nice to see that George is concerned for his brother Jeb's state. Now about the rest of the country...

Which, sadly, weren't filled. The magazine tries to place you in the role as an Armchair General - you make the decisions. Two articles do just that. One is a contest. They give you a scenario. You mail in your orders. Winner gets announced in a future issue. I thought this well done and the highlight of the magazine but it wasn't enough. Another article also had you making decisions as a tank commander stuck on the beaches at Normandy but the choices were limited, rather obvious, and ultimately uninteresting. Simply a poor implementation of the "choose-your-own-adventure" type story.

Beyond those two articles were short computer game reviews and semi-historical fiction. I wanted more details, more history, more tactics, more maps. "Armchair General" is a much lesser version of "Command" and the "Armchair General" aspect would fare better as a supplement to that magazine. For the price of a subscription you could buy a decent wargame and do your own "what-ifs?". Summary: Not recommended. Buy "Command" instead.

Rumsfeld Nixes Draft
And I'm supposed to feel grateful.

Evil Hussein
Notice how the Pro-Bushies have fallen back to their final stance, that Hussein was evil and if we hadn't of overthrown him many more Iraqis would be dead. With all their other excuses and justifications proven as fabrications or distortions this is it - the final stand. And, again, we ask: Why just Hussein and not any of the other evil bastards ruining our world?

They just can't accept that other motives may be at play: oil, revenge, Mid-East influence, a set-up to take out Saudi Arabia. Who knows outside of the Bush Inner Circle?

They don't understand that in the War between Good and Evil that that there's no law preventing the Evil guys from telling the truth and the Good guys from lying. In this case, it looks like Hussein may have told the truth about WMDs and Bush lied about WMDs. bin Laden still runs free.

Hypocrisy II
Drubius rightly commented below (on tBlog) that Hypocrisy can be spelled Democrat or Republican (or to any other corrupt political group for that matter). But come November when it yet again is a choice between an ass and Dumbo, I feel the ass is ever so slightly less offensive. Bush can not be allowed to win and so a vote for Kerry can be considered as a desperate measure.

Afterwards, go home, hug the kids, have a beer (or something a bit stronger), and have a cry for our country.

Meanwhile as noted yesterday other Republican forces are attempting to re-instate the draft. Do you think for a moment that Senator Hagen is acting on his own, or perhaps he had a little incentive or blessing from higher up? Certainly it's a no-risk ploy for Bush. Have a compatriot suggest the draft. If a stink is raised, act like the suggestion is too extreme and we're not that type of country. If the suggestion doesn't raise a stink, start 'er up.

Or Just start 'er up anyway. It's not like Bush gives a damn about Americans. "Coalition of the willing" - American youths need not apply. Your names are already known.

WASHINGTON (AFP) - A senior Republican lawmaker said that deteriorating security in Iraq (news - web sites) may force the United States to reintroduce the military draft.


"There's not an American ... that doesn't understand what we are engaged in today and what the prospects are for the future," Senator Chuck Hagel told a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on post-occupation Iraq.


"Why shouldn't we ask all of our citizens to bear some responsibility and pay some price?" Hagel said, arguing that restoring compulsory military service would force "our citizens to understand the intensity and depth of challenges we face."


The Nebraska Republican added that a draft, which was ended in the early 1970s, would spread the burden of military service in Iraq more equitably among various social strata.


"Those who are serving today and dying today are the middle class and lower middle class," he observed."

Why indeed? But why should it be our responsibility when it wasn't our decision to go to war? Aren't we already bearing a price in terms of billions of tax dollars sent overseas and higher gas prices? Why should I support a cause I disagree with? Blind patriotism is fanaticism, the very thing we're fighting. As a parent I don't want my kids ever fighting for a cause based on lies and distorted truths. I don't want my kids dying because of a stupid situation started and perpetuated by a self-serving Government Cabal.

The draft would only snare in lower-class and middle-class kids. The upper-class "connected" kids would get cushy appointments if not outright exemptions. If Hagel thinks the current military is non-representative of the U.S. social strata then start the draft with the high-income families (and watch the tax loopholes increase).

Are we to end up like the U.S.S.R. putting all our money in "defense" and internal security? Look where that got them...

The latest issue of Vanity Fair (A Conde Nast publication - LMA!) with Jackie O on the cover has a huge article about the Bush cabal and the redirection of U.S. might towards Iraq. Very depressing. It reads like a good guy vs. bad guys epic with the good guy losing. Colin Powell is the good guy, the voice of reason, the one who says we shouldn't rush into Iraq and certainly without substantiated reasons. Perle, Wolfowitz, and Cheney are the bad guys who want to go into Iraq and will let nothing - not truth or honesty - stand in their way. Powell loses and ends up delivering the classic speech to the U.N. about Hussein and the dangers of WMDs. I like Powell. I may not agree with his politics but he's oozes sincerity. He doesn't smirk. He comes off very forthright and with his military background you know that he won't use the military lightly or haphazardly. In a way earlier blog I mentioned that Powell should show some major chutzpah and resign, claiming the lack of integrity in the Oval Office.

Bush comes off as a shallow thinker who wants to keep his buddies happy so Iraq it is, like a little puppy dog but with nuclear capabilities, or like a little kid playing army with the biggest set his daddy could afford. The article pretty much reinforced all the other "Invasion of Iraq" scenarios and certainly is what reality has borne out. We didn't go into Iraq for completely altruistic reasons.

And now we're in a dung heap of a lose-lose situation. Stay in Iraq and continue to be targets, continue to be symbol for terrorists to rally around. How funny that there may be more al Qaeda operatives in Iraq now than before the invasion. If we leave Iraq then we had the terrorists a symbolic victory. It will appear that they have driven us out. Maybe this can be avoided if Bush sticks to his word (for once), hands over the keys to the kingdom in June, and starts withdrawing troops in time for the election (hmmmm, do ya think?).

That combined with the perfect timing of dropping oil prices should pretty much guarantee Bush victory. Gaining the Presidency by holding America fiscally hostage over oil...

Read the following, picture Bush doing the talking and picture Cheney doing a happy dance in the background. It's from Bush latest speech.

QUESTION:Mr. President, before the war, you and members of your administration made several claims about Iraq: that U.S. troops would be greeted as liberators with sweets and flowers; that Iraqi oil revenue would pay for most of the reconstruction; and that Iraq not only had weapons of mass destruction but, as Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said, we know where they are.


How do you explain to Americans how you got that so wrong? And how do you answer your opponents who say that you took this nation to war on the basis of what have turned out to be a series of false premises?


BUSH: Well, let me step back and review my thinking prior to going into Iraq.


First, the lesson of September the 11th is that when this nation sees a threat, a gathering threat, we got to deal with it. We can no longer hope that oceans protect us from harm. Every threat we must take seriously.
How about the ultra-rightwing religious nuts subverting our Government? - LMM


Saddam Hussein was a threat. He was a threat because he had used weapons of mass destruction on his own people. He was a threat because he coddled terrorists. He was a threat because he funded suiciders. He was a threat to the region. He was a threat to the United States.
Hussein no longer had WMDs. Which terrorists? Not al Qaeda who were proven threats to the U.S. Hussein was more of a threat to Israel not to the U.S.. If Hussein destroyed Israel, he'd be am Islamic hero for the ages. - LMM


That's the assessment that I made from the intelligence, the assessment that Congress made from the intelligence. That's the exact same assessment that the United Nations Security Council made with the intelligence.
Once the intelligence had been "cleaned up" and massaged by those wanting an Iraqi invasion. - LMM


I went to the U.N., as you might recall, and said, either you take care of him, or we will. Any time an American president says, if you don't, we will, we better be prepared to. And I was prepared to.


I thought it was important for the United Nations Security Council that when it says something, it means something for the sake of security in the world.


See, the war on terror had changed the calculations. We needed to work with people. People needed to come together to work. And therefore, empty words would embolden the actions of those who are willing to kill indiscriminately.
Huh? This from someone who knocked out the U.N. and many allies because of his unresisting plan to invade Iraq. - LMM


The United Nations passed a Security Council resolution unanimously that said, disarm or face serious consequences. And he refused to disarm.
If Hussein didn't have WMDs like he said than how can he disarm? Though Hussein was a cruel bastard doesn't mean every thing he said was a lie. - LMM


I thought it was very interesting that Charlie Duelfer, who just came back -- he's the head of the Iraqi Survey Group -- reported some interesting findings from his recent tour there. And one of the things was, he was amazed at how deceptive the Iraqis had been toward UNMOVIC and UNSCOM, deceptive in hiding things.


We knew they were hiding things. A country that hides something is a country that is afraid of getting caught, and that was part of our calculation. Charlie confirmed that.
And they hid things so well that we can't find them though we found money. - LMM


He also confirmed that Saddam had the ability to produce biological and chemical weapons. In other words, he was a danger. And he had long-range missiles that were undeclared to the United Nations. He was a danger. And so we dealt with him.
Still quoting the unconfirmed or outright false sources. - LMM


And what else was part the question? Oh, oil revenues.


Well, the oil revenues, they're bigger than we thought they would be at this point in time. I mean, one year after the liberation of Iraq, the revenues of the oil stream is pretty darn significant.
Happy dance time!!! BTW, who's buying the oil?- LMM


One of the things I was concerned about, prior to going into Iraq, was that the oil fields would be destroyed, but they weren't. They're now up and running. And that money is -- it will benefit the Iraqi people. It's their oil, and they'll use it to reconstruct the country.
So why are we spending BILLIONS of dollars to reconstruct their nation? Who's profiting here? - LMM

And let me say this again: I support our troops. I do not support the policy that put these troops in the danger they're in now. I do not approve of the current stance that if you disagree with the invasion of Iraq - if you don't blindly support Bush - then you're not a patriot. Being a Patriot means supporting those qualities that make a country great. A quality such a Freedom of Speech (and Thought), being able to openly applaud or criticize the Government, is what I support and what the Patriot Act seeks to limit. The Bush Cabal are not Patriots; they are an embarrassment and a threat to that which makes America unique, great, and proud. Ramble over.

And on that note remember when Bush et al claimed that Hussein supported al Qaeda. Later they modified it to "al Qaeda-like groups. And then to just Hussein supported terrorist groups.

WTF - Dodgers?
Currently have the best record in baseball?!? It's gotta be the arrival of the Apocalypse...

WTF - Alias?
OK, I'm going to sound like a fanwanker here but last night's episode didn't make sense with the whole bit about Sidney having a sister. Didn't Sloan earlier in the season confess to the CIA shrink that Sidney may be his daughter? Last night he said that 2 years ago he found out that Irina's kid was his. So let's get this straight. Sloan has an affair with Irina. Irina gets pregnant. Irina is still married to Jack which means she hasn't "died" or disappeared. Therefore here's the possibilities of what happened between Jack, Irina, and Sloan:


- Sloan boffed Irina before or after Sidney's birth yet Jack didn't notice that Irina was pregenant again, or


- Sloan boffed Irina before or after Jack did (sloppy seconds for someone) and Irina had twins. BUT if she had twins somehow the records had to be fixed and the nurses silenced. And conveniently enough Sloan's baby is the one that disappears. My guess is this is the route the writers will go to give Jennifer Garner a chance to play her twin.


- Sloan boffed Irina before or after Jack did (again - sloppy seconds) and the result is Sidney. No twin but perhaps her "sister" is an implanted alter ago.

And Sloan's execution was too obviously a set-up, though my hopes were up for a moment...

WTF - Lakers?
2-0 with players who can barely move...

Todays LA Times had a front page article about how Bush has changed his stance towards Sharon's Middle East plan. Y'see, when Bush does it it's a "change of stance", when Kerry does it it's a "flip-flop". And from Bush's recent speech I like how Bush gave a minor ramble about how lucrative the Iraqi oil has been. You could see the dollar signs in his eyes. Yet the Iraqi oil hasn't been lucrative enough so that we can stop shelling out bucks or bombs for their reconstruction. And - heads up! - if Bush wins the Election, any one want to bet that the Draft will make a comeback?

Lakers!!!
I still have hope that not only will the Lakers win another Championship but that the team won't explode or implode in the process. Certainly Payton deserves a ring for his consistency in playing. If no ring then Kobe and Shaq should give sizable checks to both Payton and Malone for their contributions. Next year? Well, if Kobe goes away like threatened I hear a decent player from Orlando will also be looking. Shaq and Tracy McGrady...could be good. No meanness towards Kobe. He's a great player but great centers are rarer so Shaq stays, free throw problems and all. But somebody should remind Kobe and Shaq that 3 rings is great, 4 rings really great, but 5 would be "Magic".

I turned off the TV right after Kobe's winning shot against Portland so I didn't see who the Lakers would play in the first round until this mornings paper. Lakers vs. Houston. Great matchup but maybe Kobe should of missed the last shot...

Fast Food
We have way of limiting fast food in my house. We can eat at McDonalds, Burger King, etc. once per month. That is, once per chain. It's a start. A few times a year we'll drive out to Simi Valley to a pick-your-own farm for an on-site lunch (pick some, eat some). And our garden always has something strange growing if the squirrels don't get to the edibles first. Yep, nothing keeps the weight down like healthy food, exercise, and extreme stress...

Veni, Veci, Visa
"I came, I saw, I charged" quoth the missus.

And the music isn't limited to American or British groups. We've heard good catchy stuff from India, Mexico, Germany, Sweden...

Good music is good music. Ya know it when you hear it and, remember, I'm the final judge because I have direct link to God (see previous posts).

Now for the little blighters a nice Politically Correct Christian hymn...or some Shaggs...

Bush's Search For WMDs
This may be a first but I'm going to defend Bush. His recent joke search for WMDs in the White House may have had an element of poor taste but for an anti-Busher like myself I thought it sublimely and supremely ironic, and quite logical if you subscribe to the notion that Bush had other motive for invading Iraq. It's like he was affirming that we were on the same page. We both know (and knew) that WMDs were a smokescreen, a sham. If Bush honestly and truly believed that Hussein had WMDs then certainly his White House search was callous and lame but Bush can't be that stupid?

Now how about Dick Cheney dancing in a tutu? That's funny!

1. That 9/11 was unpreventable. There was intelligence that something big was going to happen at some point but without more concrete details, our Government couldn't do much. Hindsight is 20/20 and despite Clarke's warnings there wasn't much to work with.


2. That because of 9/11 our Intelligence Agencies recognized the need for change and hence the Department of Homeland Security.


3. That because of 9/11 our Intelligence Agencies needed better intelligence gathering tools internal to the U.S. and hence the Patriot Act.

Condi also mentioned that they are now aware of and tracking other threatening countries (like Iran and North Korea), of WMDs, and that intelligence is better. Again, her testimony was neat, cool, and very impressive. To be expected, otherwise why let her testify.

But the testimony was also a complete waste of time. Seriously. I caught the last three Commission investigators and their questioning was simplistic and evadable. The last questioner was essentially pitching slow and easy for Condi to hit home runs out of the park. He fawned so much I thought he'd lick her boots at first. I felt that here was a dog-and-pony show (the Commission) presenting a nice smoke-and-mirrors act to, once again, get the attention away from the real issue - Iraq.

Consider: After 9/11, after Homeland, after the Patriot Act what happens? The attention shifts from Afghanistan and the pursuit of bin Laden to Iraq and Hussein. Why? Because the White House (Bush et al) said that Hussein had WMDs, supproted al Qaeda, and was an immediate threat to the U.S - all based on intelligence gathered under a new supposedly smarter system. Yet Iraq has been an utter failure other than the ousting of Hussein. Either our intelligence systems still are incompetent and/or perhaps the Bush Administration had a priority other than the reasons given for going in to Iraq. What we've been hearing is the intelligence regarding Iraq was modified, belittled, trumped up, or outright ignored. What we've been hearing is that even prior to 9/11, Bush was looking for a reason to go into Iraq. Even more ludicrous is that the reasons given by Bush for going into Iraq - have WMDs, have connections with terrorist groups, and may pose as much a threat to the U.S. - would easily qualify other nations (ummm, Pakistan) for invasions. Yet, we did then - and are doing now - nothing, at least not on the scale of an invasion.

We need a true independent investigation into Bush et al's planning regarding Iraq. If Bush had invasion plans for Iraq before 9/11, even before being elected, then his actions may be prosecutable for he has used American personnel for his own agenda. He has placed U.S. military and civilians in harms way. He has repeatedly sidestepped Governmental processes and safeguards to further his own designs. He has wasted taxpayer money. He has made the United States and the World a less safe place by giving terrorists a massive cause to rally around. We need the truth and we don't need Bush.

Nader is calling for an impeachment of Bush. I will second, third, and fourth that.

Bombing a mosque, even by accident, is a guaranteed way to up the number of enemies. It serves to justify the notion that this is a religious war and unites the disparate factions already fighting us. This is a stupid, senseless war that doesn't benefit anyone except Bush, his cronies, and the Companies they serve. Thanks a friggin' lot. Impeach? I have a better idea: let Bush and his buddies go to Iraq and serve some real frontline duty. They wanted the war, let them fight it. Halliburton wants an open-ended contract? Let them fight for it. Let's watch the CEOs of Halliburton, Bechtel, and other cushy Companies fight gloriously side-by-side with George W., standing tall and proud in his white kevlar. Or would they hide in a hole shitting in their pants...

In any case, I'd like for me (and my kids) to be able to like someone without regard to gender or ethnicity or religious beliefs or political orientation, and not get generically ridiculed for doing so.

Tom Cruise ain't too bad either but Nicole's is beginning to look like she hits the sauce a bit too much. No meanness intended just an observation.

Talking To God
Moses, Abraham, to name a few. These are people supposedly talked to God and guess what? They weren't Preachers! They were ordinary Joes like you or me. So who says that Preachers (and I use this term generically to also refer to Imams, Rabbis, etc.) have the lock on Godly intercourse? And with that, who is anyone to dispute much less refute that a discourse with God has happened? If a lady ssays God told her to stone her kids how is that different from some Imam screaming that God told him for his followers to kill Americans, or for some Televangelist to claim that God told him that Jews killed Jesus? How can you test whether someone is truthfully conversing with God versus a lie versus a believed though imaginary conversation?

WIth that in mind I must confess that I had a message from God at last nights Seder. Yes, honest and true - a little rapport with the head honcho. My Mother-In-Law had handed me a jar of freshly grated horseradish to put out for the gefilte fish. Being the macho, simpleminded sort of male that I am, I opened the jar, stuck my face right down in it, and took a honking big snort. When I woke up 20 minutes later my face was still red and burning, my eyebrows were missing, and my hairline had receded to the back of my neck. My kids said that watching me was "Totally Cool!" and that they didn't know I could dance like that, akin to a spastic scarecrow. The In-Laws looked at my wife with a "We told you not to marry this guy look!" And my own mother shrugged and commented that she may have dropped me a few times too many on my head.

But in the agony I had gotten a message from God - a two-parter. The first part was a plain and clear "Thou shalt not snort horseradish - dumbshit!" and the other was that all readers and potential readers - by direct and undisputable order from God Almighty, the One God, the Gracious God, the Vengeful God - need to send me money and lots of it. Seriously. This is what God told me. I was to be rewarded by my readers by their giving, to pay for an eyebrow transplant. So - dear readers - click the Paypal donation now.

Or will you defy God and his message, and face his fearful wrath?

(The above was humerous comment. you do NOT have to send any money to me or any other person who claims that God has demanded such. God does not need money! In fact, God should be quite self-sufficient and not in need of tithings or sacrifices of any sort, for if God is omnisicient and perfect than God must also be complete. To demand money or sacrifices implies that God has a need. If God has a need then God is incomplete and therefore not perfect. Stick to the perfect God or none at all.)

For those of you who've never been to a Passover Seder, go, try one. I guarantee you will appreciate and never take for granted the concept of Freedom again. The Seder commemorates by recreating the enslavement of the Hebrews by the Egyptians many moons ago. You are enslaved in this ceremony that goes on and on and on. Your stomach growls as you smell the food cooking and tempting you. Sure, you get a little taste of matzoh, charoset (chopped apples, cinnamon, and nuts), and maror (fresh grated horseradish). Sure, you get four cups of wine, more if you screw up the blessings. But the fact is, the seder is a test of endurance. The original Survivor. You start out reclining and as the hours drone on, the eyes get heavy. Last person awake gets to eat. More than once I've lifted a Grandma out of an empty soup bowl.

If you have kids it becomes a special challenge. They get antsy and irritable after 10 minutes trying to stay seated. After 3 hours better check your insurance policy because something is gonna burn. They are hungry!! I've seen my kids gnawing on the furniture. The Four Questions get reduced to One: "When the ^*%* do we eat?" Usually we give up trying to keep them seated after an hour and so we undo the seatbelts, handcuffs, leg irons and let them play. We adults will suffer for them.

Finally after 5-10 hours and many longing stares at the family dog it's time to eat. Consumption records get set at this point. I've witnessed entire Seder meals - from soup to dessert - get wolfed in under 20 minutes. It's a primal feeding and afterwards you better count the number of children and check the dog for teethmarks. Afterwards there's a quiet clean-up as we look within ourselves and grimace at our just-displayed lack of humanity. But we are Free, we are Liberated, until the next night when it starts all over.

Blogging in the Good Ol' USA
Little Miss Attila - the Rah! Rah! Bush supporter - has moved her blog from a U.S. based site to one offshore. So typical of that ilk. Sipping her frothy cuppa and complaining about those damn Liberals. She probably still believes that WMDs are in Iraq, Bush didn't lie, and tax cuts for the rich are good for the Economy...

Vice President
Interesting that Bush hasn't formally named Cheney as running mate, nor has Kerry named anyone. Could be a make-or-break deal for either of them, though pity Governor Ah-nold can't run alongside Bush. That'd likely give Bush a chance at a real, honest election win.

For Kerry the field is wide open. John Edwards is an obvious choice and he said as such. He'd bring a clean youthful look and could use the grooming for a run in 2008 or 2012. Kerry and Edwards could likely work together. Howard Dean would be an interesting choice in that Dean could possibly bring back people to the Democrats who are now looking at Nader but whether Kerry and Dean could work together seems dubious. For a guaranteed win over Bush, Kerry could tap Hillary Clinton but doubtful Kerry would like a veep that's more popular and gets more focus than him. More importantly he'd a President with a nice big bulls-eye on his back as some may find having a Female President too tempting.

The worst Kerry could do is get someone with an obvious religious bent, like Lieberman. That's playing towards the Republicans and would further knock down The Wall of Separation. Enough with religion in our political system. No Lieberman or Sharpton.

Who do you think? I'd like to hear some good nominees with supporting rationales?

But God Said
The woman who stoned her kids to death (one barely survived) because God told her so was found "Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity" and gets to spend the next 6 months in a loony prison. Despite the heinousness of the crime what gets me is the underlying absurdity of the reason. If God told her to proselytize on a street corner - no problem. If God told her to go kill heathen - no problem, right? In the Torah/Old Testament God commands people to kill all the time, wipe out tribes and nations, kill brethren. So if God told this woman to kill her kids who are we to judge otherwise? If she had not killed but instead claimed to have had a vision of God she'd likely have lines of people outside her door. Preachers, many politicians and celebrities claim to have communicated all the time with God so what's the big deal? That she killed her kids? Does any of us know Gods plan? Of course not so, again, how can we judge her?

Ain't Religion wonderful? Do any damn fool thing you want and you have a built-in excuse. Personally I think this woman may be insane but should have been found guilty anyway with an appropriate penalty. Poor kids.

So I'm watching the show and one of the guys - a self-professed pretty boy - mentioned that he waxed his own eyebrows, which triggered in my minute little brain: "Metrosexual".

Stupid term - that because it has nothing to do with sexuality, preferring one gender or species over another. The guy just enjoyed doing things traditionally considered for the females. Not long ago he'd probably have been called a pansy but even that's not quite right and just plain rude. Let's flip this - what do you call a female that like traditional male things? A tomboy? Butch?

Why do we even need a term for this seeming crossing-over since that implies a maintenance of traditional gender roles? In The Grapes of Wrath Reverend Casy offers to help pack the salted pork into barrels. Ma Joad still think it's womens work but as he says "work is work" and there's too much of it to bother with which work belongs to which gender. Same with make-up. Same with clothing. Sure, maybe guys won't be wearing bras (though some should) or girls wearing jockstraps, but so what if guys like to wear nail polish or a women likes to watch football.

At my youngest kids daycare all the kids play with makeup, dolls, dresses, pants, hammers, and just things. They get their hair gelled, spiked, pony-tailed whether boy or girl. They love it - it's fun.

And now I'm trying desperately to come up with a point to this entry but I can't. I'm so confused. I think I need a mudpack...